Sitting of 15 February 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 1 March.
  COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Civil Aerospace Projects
    Mr. John Wilkinson: How much launch aid for civil aerospace projects in the United Kingdom was invested by his Department over the past 10 years; and what royalties on sales in the civil aerospace sector were received by the Government in this period. [148999]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government receive a return on their launch investments through levies on the sales of engines and aircraft.
    In the financial years 1990–91 to 1999–2000, £999 million was awarded in launch investment; in the same period, £915 million was received. Further returns will be received from launch investments. The details of individual investments remain commercially confidential, but the Government expect to receive a substantial real rate of return on all launch investments made in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Minister agree that those returns are broadly satisfactory? The programme of launch investment in the Airbus series of aircraft initiated by Baroness Thatcher, with some £220 million for the A320, is now to be followed by Government investment of some £250 million in the engine sector for the Trent 600 and 900 power plants? Does that not show that Governments of both persuasions recognise the strategic
    438
    importance of the British aircraft industry as a whole to the United Kingdom, and that the money is well invested and well spent?
    Mr. Johnson: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments—it has been a great success. Money is still being received for the A320, which was introduced in 1988, which shows that the aid was a good investment for the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that launch aid has been crucial to retaining aerospace jobs resulting from the Airbus work in Burnley and north-east Lancashire? It is welcome, and we want it to continue. Aerospace is an important part of the local economy and the British economy as a whole.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a great British success story. The aerospace industry has contributed an average of £2 billion to our balance of trade over the past 21 years. The venture that my hon. Friend mentions—the A380, previously known as the A3XX—will create 22,000 new jobs and safeguard 62,000 existing jobs.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Welcome as the news was, it was unfortunate that on the "Today" programme the Secretary of State did not pay tribute to the previous, Conservative Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made clear, a Conservative Government looked carefully at the A320 programme and decided that, even though politicians were not generally the best at making commercial decisions, a decision could be made. The result was that all launch aid for the A320 was repaid with interest by December 1999. The Government are now receiving dividends on Britain's most successful post-war civil aircraft programme.
    Mr. Johnson: On the issue of aerospace, the whole House can unite in supporting a great British industry. As for the previous Government's record, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Trade Tariffs
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What representations his Department has made to the European Commission regarding the everything but arms proposal. [149000]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department has made many representations to the European Commission about its proposals, urging rapid implementation while at the same time taking account of the legitimate concerns of those such as the non-ACP less-developed countries that might be affected.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister agree that the everything but arms proposal, which provides tariff-free access for 919 products, is a welcome initiative? Will he put his weight behind it so that it is approved by the Council of Ministers as swiftly as possible? Will he point out to its critics that it will cost the EU less than £5 million a year—a small price to pay, considering the substantial prosperity that it engenders in developing

    439
    countries and the poorest countries? Does he recognise that, as well as helping the poorest countries to strengthen their economies, it sends out a strong message that it is better to trade in civilian goods than in arms?
    Mr. Caborn: I completely agree. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made this country's position clear in his Mansion House speech. Indeed, we are taking the issue to the European Union, where we hope to be able to reach an agreement that will assist the least developed countries. We are talking about 0.5 per cent. of world share—of economies in which the gross domestic product is less than $1 per person a day. We have a responsibility to those countries, and we shall push very hard indeed on that matter in the EU.
    Mr. John Bercow: There is fog of Government confusion on this matter. Why, in referring to the everything but arms proposal on 22 November last year, did the Prime Minister say, in terms, "We are concerned about the proposal", when, on the same day, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said that the Government strongly support the proposal? Which of them was off-message?
    Mr. Caborn: We strongly support it; the Prime Minister made that clear in his Mansion House speech. Indeed, we have led in the EU on the issue, to ensure that we push hard for the inclusion of the three items that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have created difficulties—bananas, rice and sugar. The Prime Minister and the Government are as one on that.
    Ms Julia Drown: This initiative is likely to result in only small gains for less developed countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the agreement does not come off as a whole, it will seriously call into question Europe's commitment to competition? Will he urge all his European colleagues to agree to the initiative in full, so that, at the next World Trade Organisation negotiations, our motives on trade liberalisation and competition are shown to be serious and in everybody's interest?
    Mr. Caborn: That is a fair question. My hon. Friend is right: the EU must show leadership, especially as we approach another round of WTO negotiations. The vast majority of the 140 WTO countries are developing countries that look for a lead from developed countries. It is incumbent on the EU to take a lead.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What recent discussions he has held with the steel industry about the effects of the climate change levy. [149002]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): My ministerial colleagues and I have held regular discussions with the steel industry about the effects of the climate change levy.
    Mr. Loughton: It sounds as though Ministers have not listened. How does the Secretary of State think that he is helping to combat global warming—let alone supporting
    440
    British manufacturing industry—by his insistence on imposing an additional £10 million energy tax burden on the UK steel industry, which is already under great pressure, even though it is one of the most efficient in the world and has halved its carbon dioxide emissions since 1970? The loss of capacity in the UK will be taken up by our European competitors, many of which exempt their steel industries from energy tax altogether; or, worse still, will go to countries that now account for more than 40 per cent. of world production and are not covered by Kyoto emissions targets and where control of harmful emissions is a low priority?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a balance needs to be struck between the desire for environmental protection and ensuring that, in achieving that objective, we do not affect the competitive position of British business. If the hon. Gentleman studies the evidence given by the chairman of Corns to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry yesterday, he will see that for Corns—the major steel producer in the United Kingdom—the climate change levy has had, or will have, very little impact.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about £8 million of the £10 million to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) referred is accounted for by Corns? The rest of the British steel industry accounts for the remaining £2 million. When the CCL was first mooted, the figure was to have been more than £120 million. As a consequence of neliptiation with my right hon. Friend's officials, it was reduced to about £8 million. The last thing on which Corns can blame the redundancies is the impact of the CCL.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point; £8 million of the amount relates to Corns. The company has pointed out that an issue of the greatest concern is that, if the exchange rate between the pound and the deutschmark changes by just one pfennig, it is the equivalent of an £8 million difference. That is why we need currency stability in the UK—one of the benefits that we would receive from joining a successful single European currency.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State believe that he is making a contribution to British industry by levying a charge on it? A company in my constituency will see the price of its gas rise next year from £300,000 to £600,000—its third largest cost after materials and salaries. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government need to tell that company to try to reduce its energy costs?
    Mr. Byers: Manufacturing industries, in particular, welcome the economic stability that the Government have created. Inflation is now 1.8 per cent. and interest rates were reduced last week. We now have the lowest long-term interest rate for some 35 years. That is the economic stability that manufacturing industry craves. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the gas and electricity figures, he will see that over the past few years the price

    441
    of gas has gone up in real terms by 4 per cent. for industrial users, but that that has been more than compensated by reductions in electricity prices.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend consider an aspect of the steel industry—the foundry industry? Although not on are same scale as the major steel producers, foundries suffer from the climate change levy, and throughout the country they are working to very tight margins. Has he had any discussions with representatives of that industry? W al he consider its predicament?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about specific issues affecting the foundry sector, and we have been carefully considering the support that we can give it. The exemption arrangements that we are putting in place give due regard to the position of the foundry sector of the steel industry.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: In the Secretary of State's statement on the 6,000 steel industry job losses at Corus earlier this month, he explicitly denied that the climate change levy was a factor. Is he aware that, on the very same day, the chairman of Corns said:
    "Direct and indirect taxes on business such as … rising energy costs and the climate change levy have all eroded our competitiveness."?
    That is a direct quote from the management. Is the right hon. Gentleman so out of touch with manufacturing industry that he does not know that damage is already being caused by that £1 billion extra tax, or does he know that damage is being caused but is too weak to stand up to the Treasury and simply denies it? Which is it?
    Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not follow the evidence that the chairman, Sir Brian Moffat, gave to the Select Committee yesterday, when he was quizzed very carefully on exactly those issues. I trust the evidence that the chairman of Corns gave to the Select Committee. He made it very clear that the climate change levy was not an issue for Corns. That is on the record; it is exactly what he said yesterday before the Select Committee. I much prefer to rely on evidence given to a Select Committee than on any quote in a national newspaper.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. David Kidney: Which of his Department's funds support the creation of new businesses in the renewable energy sector. [149003]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): New businesses in the renewables energy sector, as in other sectors, may be eligible to apply for enterprise grants, regional selective assistance, smart awards, help from the small firms loan guarantee scheme and so on. However, businesses in renewable energy are also directly supported by the non- fossil fuel obligation, the proposed renewables obligation capital grants and an increasing research and development budget.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she share my belief, and that of my ever-enthusiastic constituent, Mr. Bob Talbott of Talbott Heating Ltd.,
    442
    that the growing demand for renewable energy sources in this country and around the world genuinely offers the prospect of a new generation—excuse the pun—of manufacturing jobs, making the things that generate the energy? Will the Minister and the Government be alert to opportunities to promote United Kingdom manufacturing jobs in those new industries?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with his constituent. The renewable energy sector already employs some 4,000 people in about 800 companies across the United Kingdom. We have set a target that 10 per cent. of overall generation will come from renewable energy in the next 10 years, which will require a threefold expansion in generation from renewable energy. We want to ensure that that benefits British high-tech manufacturing industry and creates more jobs in Britain.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: The Minister's comments on renewable energy firms are very encouraging, but will she recognise the fact that 4,000 new firms start every year and that such a big sector needs support? The incubator scheme proposed in the White Paper, which has just been announced, is designed to assist 2,500 firms, and another scheme is designed to help 1,000 firms over three years, but many other firms will clearly need support and new firms are coming through. Does the hon. Lady believe that it is also important to offer continuity of support to firms, as nearly 50 per cent. of them fail within two years?
    Ms Hewitt: The Small Business Service that we have created and the new business links network throughout the country are designed to provide exactly that high-class support to businesses at every stage of their life cycle, including pre-start-up and growth. We are also making available in the renewable energy sector £89 million in capital grants, introducing a new renewables obligation and providing additional help for R and D, all of which will help to create more businesses specifically in that sector.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend share my view about the enormous potential that lies in the development of offshore wind energy? As well as providing a supply of renewable energy free of some of the obstacles of the planning system, it offers firms in the offshore oil and gas sector, which is declining at the moment, opportunities to diversify. Will she join me in welcoming the proposal by SLP, a firm in my constituency, to build a wind turbine and a renewable energy centre at Britain's most easterly point, Lowestoft?
    Ms Hewitt: I certainly welcome that and I congratulate SLP on its initiative. The £89 million of capital grants to which I referred are available specifically for offshore wind energy projects, which have enormous potential. We are also supporting demonstration wave energy projects, which can help to stimulate the growth of the offshore energy market.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister seek to ensure that relevant Departments and planning authorities are fully aware of Government policy on, and support for, renewable energy? Does she agree that

    443
    consultation between promoters of renewable energy projects, planners and environmentalists is a better way of resolving disputed planning applications than expensive public inquiries and appeals procedures?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Planning concerns are expressed about many proposed renewable energy projects, and his suggestion that these matters are best resolved through sensible dialogue within local communities is exactly right.
    Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the record profits announced this week and in recent weeks by some of the world's leading non-renewable energy companies, does my hon. Friend think that if the Chancellor could be persuaded of the merits of a windfall tax on oil companies it would provide a revenue stream for investment in the development of renewables that would enable the United Kingdom to be a global leader in renewable energy technologies, exactly as it is in the climate change strategy?
    Ms Hewitt: Oil companies are making substantially increased investment in the North sea fields. They are also investing in new sources of renewable energy. Any other issues to which my hon. Friend referred are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: It is interesting to note that the hon. Lady has taken over responsibility for renewable energy from the new Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. However, she shares with the hon. Gentleman an important task in trying to put together a coherent energy policy, which both their predecessors spectacularly failed to deliver over the past four years, particularly on the issue of rising CO2 emissions as Magnox stations are decommissioned.
    At the moment, only 2.8 per cent. of electricity generation is from renewable sources, so the general view in the industry is that the Government's target of 5 per cent. from renewables by 2003 is completely unrealistic. How confident is the Minister that the target will be met? If it is not met, what will be the consequences for the CO2 emission figures and energy policy generally, which are both based on the assumption that it will be met?
    Ms Hewitt: We are working actively with the sector to achieve that target, which is more than the previous Administration did. The non-fossil fuel obligation—the existing obligation—and the proposed renewables obligation have led to an increased demand from energy users for energy that is generated from renewable sources. The fact that the climate change levy has been carefully designed to give an exemption for energy that is generated from new renewable sources is further stimulating that demand. I am confident that we will work successfully with the industry to achieve our targets.

    Manufacturing Industry (Gas Prices)
    Mr. John Grogan: What assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing industry of the rise in the price of gas. [149004]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are very much aware of the impact that the rise has had on manufacturing. We are addressing that by pressing for greater liberalisation in Europe and working for improvements in the United Kingdom market. We shall also refer any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour to the appropriate competition authorities. I particularly welcome the Commission's announcement on 1 February that it has agreed to my request for a Commission competition inquiry into the operation of the interconnector.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that the price of industrial gas has doubled in the past year, does he agree that there is a strong case for encouraging the Office of Fair Trading to take a look at the gas industry, especially as the interconnector, which is often blamed for the rise, accounts for less than 6 per cent. of total consumption by British industry?
    Mr. Byers: The Government are doing three things. First, we are tying to make a reality of the single market in Europe with regard to energy. Secondly, we are trying to ensure that the UK market functions properly. One way to achieve that is by securing greater price transparency, and I hope that the industry will agree to that. Thirdly, to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend, we have to ensure that competition works effectively. If there are examples of anti-competitive behaviour in the sector, we will move quickly and refer them to the relevant competition authorities.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State says that if the European Union is to mean anything, the single market must work properly. The fact that energy is not fully liberalised within the EU, but is generally liberalised within the UK, is putting us at a considerable competitive disadvantage. What is he doing to press the commissioner to complete his inquiry? Is it not wrong that a fully French-owned company should be able to take over London Electricity when British companies cannot take over French energy companies?
    Mr. Byers: Eléctricité de France's takeover of London Electricity did not raise any competition concerns, but we do need to make a reality of the single market in energy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important prize. We are pushing that agenda forward, have secured a commitment in Lisbon for a timetable on it and will raise that important item at the Stockholm Council in a couple of months.
    There is no doubt chat we stand to gain enormously if we make a reality of the single market. At the moment, it is not acting in the interests of the UK, which is why the interconnector and the way in which it operates are particularly significant and why I am pleased that the Commission has agreed to open the inquiry to ensure that it is operating competitively.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major cause of the increase in gas prices is the fact that gas suppliers are pushing more gas down the interconnector to chase higher prices on the continent, which has pulled UK prices into line and squeezed our market? If he agrees

    445
    with that analysis, does he also agree that it is time to consider putting more resources into the research and development of clean coal technology)?
    Mr. Byers: I was waiting for that final question. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall address. As for the reasons for the price increase, there is often a tie between the price of oil and the price of gas. Contracts, especially in continental Europe, are related to the two prices. As a result, when contracts were renegotiated last autumn, the very high oil prices at that time led to a significant spike in gas prices. That should not necessarily affect the United Kingdom, but the way in which the interconnector has operated gives cause for concern. As my hon. Friend said, UK gas now chases higher prices in continental Europe, even when demand in the UK is very strong.
    If hon. Members have time, I invite them to consider how the interconnector operated on 15 January. When the market was tight in the UK and a good price was being paid, the interconnector suddenly switched from import mode to exporting. That is one of the issues that the Commission will investigate, because it appears that the operation of the interconnector is not truly competitive.
    On my hon. Friend's final point, we are interested in considering clean coal technology. He will be aware that we are discussing with the sector how we can develop pilot projects in this area.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State confirm that whole sale gas prices have doubled over the past year and that they will go up again from April as a result of the new energy tax? Will he also confirm that retail prices are starting to be affected? They are due to go up by nearly 5 per cent. shortly, with more rises in the pipeline. Why is the Department's only response to blame the increases on the interconnector and the lack of liberalisation in the European energy market? The Government say that they have much influence in Europe, so why have they done nothing about the problem for the past four years?
    Why do we have a Secretary of State who does not know what the problem is? He will not do anything about it and he is simply reduced to the role of spectator while the damage is done. As a spectator, he makes a stopped clock—as mentioned by the Minister for Competitiveness—look like a positive model of energy, activity and accuracy.
    Mr. Byers: That sounded very much like a Tory demand for renationalisation of the gas and electricity industries, and that may well be supported by some of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening, but we must make sure that the market works effectively. He has considered the issues, so he will know that we inherited from the Conservative Administration a market that was not working effectively.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures for gas and electricity prices, so let us consider what we have been able to do. Industrial consumers pay 4 per cent. more for gas than they did in 1997, but they pay 12 per cent. less for electricity. According to the latest figures, domestic consumers pay 14 per cent. less for electricity and 12 per cent. less for gas. [interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asks a question, I expect him to allow an answer.
    Mr. Byers: The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the facts getting in the way of his own prejudice. However, the facts for domestic customers are clear. The latest figures show that they pay 14 per cent. less for electricity and 12 per cent. less for gas. That is what we have done. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on those figures. He asked what the Government had done, and I have told him what we have achieved—we have taken the prices down.

    Industrial Diseases
    Mr. John Cummings: What progress has been made to date in settling claims for vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [149006]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): We have settled more than 20,000 claims for vibration white finger and made a further 23,000 interim payments, together totalling nearly £220 million in compensation. For lung disease, progress has been much slower, but payments are now starting to flow, with about £113 million having been paid out. In recent weeks, we have been paying out about £1 million per day across Britain for both.
    Mr. Cummings: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply and wish him well in his endeavours to break through the logjam that is causing so much misery and distress to tens of thousands of seriously ill ex-miners.
    Will my hon. Friend examine, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of accepting paper assessments of desperately ill ex-miners who find themselves unable to undergo the full medical assessment process? Is it not ironic that the Department should accept paper assessments in relation to deceased claimants but not in relation to living claimants who are desperately and woefully ill?
    Mr. Hain: I shall examine my hon. Friend's suggestion afresh, although it has been considered before. Respiratory consultants prefer to see claimants in person because they can often provide a better deal as a result. That was the view of Mr. Justice Turner in his court judgment. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's long involvement with the mining industry and his strong commitment to justice for miners. That is a principle to which I am committed as the new Minister with responsibility for energy. I will work with my hon. Friend and anybody else to achieve justice for miners.
    There have been delays, and we are putting the system right. Each day, £1 million is being paid out. The Conservative Government denied justice to miners year after year, and we are now delivering it.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I wish the Minister well in the vital task that is before him. As part of it, will he reconsider the invidious clawback—a bureaucratic nightmare, which does not bring much financial relief to the Government and causes great distress to miners'

    447
    families. Will the hon. Gentleman talk again with his colleagues in government about relieving the clawback for miners' families?
    Mr. Hain: Discussions are taking place to ensure that the system is as fair as possible. We are committed. Last week £1 million was paid out in compensation to miners in Wales. The system has been too slow and there have been too many problems. There have been faults on all sides, including the Government's. Healthcall, IRISC—the claims handlers—and solicitors have all been responsible for delays. We are driving through improvements and I call on the hon. Gentleman and his party, instead of sneering from the sidelines—I welcome his earlier comments, which go against that—to work with us to ensure that the system delivers what it is intended to deliver.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be doing everything that is possible because he, like me and many other hon. Members, has constituents who are directly affected by the issue. What other steps does he think could be taken to speed up the process? Will he speak to the solicitors, who in some cases have been holding papers for more than five months? Ex-miners have contacted me about the slowness of progress with their claims.
    Mr. Hain: In the Bridgend area alone, £5.5 million has been paid out in miners' compensation. That is an important contribution to the welfare of miners in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the surrounding area. This afternoon, I am meeting the solicitors' group representing claimants and I will discuss these matters with them. We have given a clear priority, and urged everybody to go with it, which is that the oldest and illest miners must come to the top of the queue, even if younger and fitter miners find their appointments rescheduled as a result.
    I have identified several categories, including asthma cases and widows' cases, which have not so far been subject to quick payments. I have identified those categories and others so that we may get the money flowing as quickly as possible. That is being achieved. Much more needs to be done, but we will get there.
    Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a satisfactory system for settling claims depends, at least in part, on the accessibility of test centres? In a written answer to me yesterday, my hon. Friend said that sick, ill and injured miners in Leicestershire should attend the centres at Cannock, Coventry or Nottingham. Without their own transport or public transport, these places are about as accessible to them as the dark side of the moon. Will my hon. Friend again review the location of test centres, to make them more convenient for miners in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd)?
    Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's concern. I shall certainly look again at his proposition. Of course there are domiciliary services for the most infirm. In the context of driving forward prioritisation for the oldest, illest miners, we are looking at ways in which we can help with their
    448
    travel needs to get them into centres as quickly as possible. They deserve attention, assessment and compensation in the shortest possible time.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to safeguard employment in the aerospace industry. [149007]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have taken a number of steps, for example launch investment in BAE Systems to develop the wings for the A380 aircraft. On Tuesday, I announced launch investment in Rolls-Royce for further development of the Trent aero-engine. As a result of the action taken by the Government, employment in the aerospace industry has increased since 1997, with the latest figures showing more than 15,000 more people being employed in the sector.
    Mr. Prentice: I extend my hearty congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his wisdom, perspicacity and foresight—you do nit often hear that, Mr. Speaker, so savour it—for putting £250 million in launch aid into Rolls-Royce, which is an important company in my constituency and that of my next-door neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
    This week, Rolls-Royce said that the £250 million grant will sustain 7,000 jobs in the company and the supply chain. I am worried that some of those jobs in the supply chain may be overseas. What conditions were attached to the grant to Rolls-Royce to ensure that as many jobs as possible stay in the United Kingdom, and do not go to other places such as Canada and eastern Europe?
    Mr. Byers: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The 7,000 jobs which have been safeguarded are in Rolls-Royce and the supply chain here in the United Kingdom, hopefully bringing benefit to my hon. Friend's constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies in Lancashire.
    I also understand my hon. Friend's concern about the restructuring on which Rolls-Royce has embarked, especially its intentions on its research and development work. We need to do all that we can to encourage Rolls-Royce to regard the United Kingdom as a good place to continue its research and development. Even at this late stage, I hope that Rolls-Royce will think again, consider that item for a few more weeks, and perhaps see what the Chancellor may announce in the Budget. We know from the pm-Budget report that my right hon. Friend is looking at the whole area of research and development support for large businesses as well as small and medium-sized enterprises.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Boeing on the inward investment that it has announced in Yorkshire and the Humber—the homeland of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—as recently as last week? Will the Secretary of State be particularly robust in standing up against any aggressive or protectionist standards from

    449
    the United States authorities, especially in any contest between Boeing and Airbus Industrie over the future of aerospace in this country?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady touches on an important point—how we can make sure that the trade disputes that have blown up between the European Union and the United States over the last few years do not occur under the new US Administration. We have already made very good contacts with the new US trade representative, and I know that he is acutely conscious of the need to ensure that we have mechanisms in place thac will ensure that we can move in quickly and stop those disputes developing into the sort of problems to which the hon. Lady referred.
    Boeing's decision to invest, with the university sector, in state-of-the-art facilities in Yorkshire, is a good demonstration of how universities and businesses can work together. The fact that world-class companies such as Boeing are coming to Yorkshire is a demonstration that, under this Government, Britain is a good place to do business and research. As a result, we are creating British jobs.
    Mr. David Borrow: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many of my constituents working for BAE Systems have welcomed the launch aid and the various military orders that the Government have announced in the past few years? Despite that, they have seen round after round of redundancies in Lancashire and the threat of further redundancies in the months ahead. As for BAE Systems, the company seems to have no clear strategy for the future. In discussions with the company in the weeks ahead, will my right hon. Friend make clear to it the concerns of Lancashire MPs and their constituents about the future of BAE Systems and its commitment to the UK aerospace industry?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for the interests of BAE Systems workers in Lancashire. I understand the concerns that he has expressed and I shall certainly raise them with the company's management. Global competition means that BAE Systems is going through a period of restructuring. It is not the job of the Government to try to stand in the way of that, as the company must make commercial decisions in its interests to ensure employment opportunities. Our task must be to help individuals through this period of change. One of the things that we are trying to do with BAE Systems is to ensure that it can secure more contracts in export markets. I hope that there will be some good news in the near future on the securing of major contracts by the company.

    Electricity Trading Arrangements
    Mr. Christopher Chope: What has been the cost to consumers of the delay in implementing the new electricity trading arrangements. [149008]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): We have no evidence that consumers' contract or tariff rates for the period April 2000 to March 2001 have been revised upward since the delay to NETA was announced.
    Mr. Chope: This is a serious issue. Yesterday, Sir Brian Moffat told the Trade and Industry Committee that electricity prices in this country were 40 per cent. higher than on the continent. The Minister did not answer my question directly, but he knows jolly well what has happened. If he speaks to Dynergy, which has the authority and confidence of Ofgem, the regulator—I spoke to the company, as I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would not give a straight answer to my question—he will find that the delay has cost consumers no less than £1,200 million. That is an average cost of £45 per electricity consumer. Is that not appalling, and why do the Government not admit the failure of their policies in that regard?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman speaks of policy failure, but since we came to office, electricity prices have fallen by 14 per cent. in real terms for individual consumers and by 12 per cent. in real terms for industrial consumers. That is a policy of success, not of failure. In respect of NETA—Hon. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Members may indeed say "Ah!" As gas contracts are negotiated a year in advance for most consumers, let us compare the third quarter of last year with the third quarter of 1999. In that time, prices fell by 4.5 per cent. for industrial consumers and by 10 per cent. for individual consumers. That shows that the new trading arrangements that we are introducing have produced in anticipation circumstances in which there are lower prices. We intend that to be driven forward and we want ordinary consumers, whether in industry or in the home, to benefit as a result.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend must know that for the steel industry, which depends so heavily on electricity, prices in Europe are significantly lower. The difference is not at the level mentioned yesterday by Sir Brian Moffat, whose figures are slightly out of date. In 10 days' time, I shall meet my hon. Friend with a delegation from the industry to discuss the matter. Will he consider it seriously between now and then? Will he put his officials in an electric chair and, if he cannot deliver, in 10 days' time, electricity prices that are equal to those of our competitors in Europe, let me pull the button on them?
    Mr. Hain: I am not sure about the electric chair option, but I shall consider seriously and listen carefully to my hon. Friend's representations. As a result of NETA we expect prices to be at least 10 per cent. lower than they would otherwise have been. It is precisely because we were concerned about the relatively high electricity prices that we inherited from the Conservative Government under the pool system that we are introducing NETA, which will ensure a better deal for the steel industry, as well as industrial consumers and household consumers in general.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the Minister to his new job and I hope that we will have some straighter answers from him than we did from the Secretary of State on gas prices. Will he confirm that the new electricity trading arrangements, with all their supposed benefits, have been delayed from last autumn and may well be delayed again, and that that breaks a

    451
    specific promise given to the House on 31 January 2000? On Second Reading of the Utilities Bill, the Secretary of State said:
    "In 12 months, we will be able to debate the matter knowing exactly what has happened as a result of the changes."—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 784.]
    Since that has not happened, will the Minister now accept that the Secretary of State misled the House on that occasion? Is the hon. Gentleman happy to have joined a Department with such little influence on real events and with an energy policy which is an obvious shambles?
    Mr. Hain: I am happy to have joined a Department which, unlike our Conservative predecessors, has a clear energy policy, and which is led by a Secretary of State who is presiding over a clear programme to bring down gas and electricity prices and to provide a decent energy supply throughout Britain.
    The delay to the introduction of NETA was on the recommendation of Ofgem and its head, Callum McCarthy, with whom I am in weekly contact. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the pre-production phase, to trial the system before it is due to come in at the end of March, started a week ago last Monday, and I have been receiving daily reports on how it is going. Depending on how that eventually turns out, the button will be pressed on the full introduction of NETA as planned on 27 March. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would want us to bring in new trading arrangements which were in any way flawed, as looked to be the case when the delay was announced last year.

    Export Control Bill
    Mr. Desmond Browne: When the draft Export Control Bill will be published. [149009]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim 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 will be in a position to publish the Bill in the spring.
    Mr. Browne: I recognise that the Government have done much to improve the transparency and accountability of arms export deals, and that there are potential practical difficulties, such as delay and commercial confidentiality, in their prior parliamentary scrutiny, but does my hon. Friend accept in principle that prior parliamentary scrutiny of arms export deals would improve accountability and transparency?
    Dr. Howells: We continue to believe that the best way forward is to strengthen retrospective scrutiny of the Government's export licensing decisions. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that he will look constructively at any further proposals from the quadripartite Committee on this issue.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: But is it not the case that the Foreign Secretary, when he was in opposition, continually attacked the Conservative Government over the Scott report? The Government have
    452
    had four years to introduce this legislation. Is it not the case that, as with the electricity trading arrangements and the consumer White Paper, such things are trumpeted but nothing ever happens? There is more trumpeting than in Duke Ellington's orchestra. Is it not the case that the Department, like the rest of this shambles of a Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) would say, is all spin and no delivery?
    Dr. Howells: Unlike the Conservative party, the Government are entirely in harmony.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is real urgency about achieving parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports, and that the decisions of the quadripartite Committee are important in that regard? Is not the Government's decision to export arms to Morocco, which can only be used for internal repression against the Polisario front, just one more example of why there should be public parliamentary scrutiny of what happens to arms exported from Britain to countries that are under no threat of external aggression?
    Dr. Howells: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I know the process that resulted in the refurbishment of some guns in Morocco and I understand that that had permission from the United Nations in New York.

    Post Office (New Technology)
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the introduction of new technology by the Post Office. [149010]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a small number of representations in recent weeks on the introduction of the Horizon computerised system at post offices including correspondence from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that the Horizon system, which was introduced at a cost of more than £1 billion, is already out of date and will not be able to meet the challenges that post offices will face in the future? Will he reassure worried postmasters and postmistresses in my constituency, a third of whom will have to close in July this year as a result of the introduction of automated credit transfer? When will this rotten Government stop attacking the most vulnerable people in our society—our senior citizens—who love to have a chat in the post office, and are not all that keen on communicating via e-mail or the internet?
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is always at his most persuasive when he whispers to me so seductively. I should be interested in the views of those on the Conservative Front Bench, because Horizon is not outdated technology. We are wiring up 40,000 serving positions at 18,500 post offices at a rate of 300 a week. It has been extremely successful, and the work will be completed by the end of March. Number of post offices

    453
    computerised under the previous Government—nil. Number of post office computerised under this Government so far—17,560.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Mrs. Jennifer Hayden, the sub-postmistress in Houghton in my constituency, will have to resign her post because, given the overheads placed on her by the Post Office, her income is less than the minimum wage. Would the Minister please look into that matter to ensure that the Post Office is not exploiting sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who do valuable work for our communities?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raised this matter with me last evening, and I have written the letter as promised during our conversation. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Labour Members do converse. I am interested in hearing about examples from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to find out why sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses resign, so that we can implement practical measures to do something about it. Now that the spotlight is on the network, we should consider issues such as that raised by my hon. Friend. I shall give it urgent attention, and I shall speak to her about it in due course.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Mrs. Rimmer, the sub-mistress at Ashton post office in my constituency, and her family have suffered armed robbery twice in the past nine months. What new technology do the Government and the Post Office propose to provide to ensure that sub-post offices can be securely protected against the evident rise in violent crime'? Sub-postmistresses in particular are vulnerable. We must do something about that, and we look to the Government to take the lead.
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In fact, attacks on sub-post offices are down. The Post Office has invested a great dual of money and time and has worked with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to address the problem of security. However, there is more that we can do, and I would certainly be interested in the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is a crucial area. Sub-postmasters and their staff deserve to be safe front such attacks, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they are.
    Gillian Merron: What progress has been made with setting up the technology in readiness for the universal bank? That will bring banking facilities to millions of people who have previously been denied such access. Will the Minister pay tribute to the likes of Mr. Paul Titcombe, the sub-postmaster at Horton Street post office in Lincoln, who put o it his own leaflet to reassure his customers that they will continue to receive benefits and payments in cash despite the changes?
    454
    Customers have been frightened by the campaign fuelled by the Conservative party, which has brought the changes that the Government are making into disrepute.
    Mr. Johnson: The Post Office is currently out to tender for the technology that needs to be added to the Horizon system so that post offices can provide the full range of network banking. I can reaffirm what was in the leaflet put out by the sub-postmaster in my hon. Friend's constituency. Before and after the move to automated credit transfer, any pensioner or benefit recipient who wants to continue to get their money in cash in full across a post office counter, weekly if it is paid weekly at the moment, will be able to do so.
    Mr. Richard Page: As the Minister sits there, presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices, forced closures are taking place at a rate of nearly two a day. There have been 434 in the first three quarters of the current financial year.
    The Minister has made much of the fact that universal banking services will apparently plug the gap caused by the introduction of ACT. Does he not find it incredible that the new technology for sub-post offices, due to be installed by the end of March, is not yet equipped with a facility to provide any of those universal banking services? Will he bring some hope to our beleaguered and battered sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses by guaranteeing that ACT will not be introduced until the new facility is in, tested and tried? Conservative Members will give that guarantee: we will not introduce ACT until the new facility is in place.
    Mr. Johnson: I seem to have been a long time in my service position, but I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's request.
    Those figures relating to closures are a cause for great concern. Let me make it clear that we are not, as it were, banking simply on universal banking services, Government general practitioner services and all the other initiatives that are in the pipeline in accordance with the report of the performance and innovation unit. Today we shall announce practical measures to attract new sub-postmasters into the network.
    The problem is that over the past two years people have become convinced that the network is dying. We must restore confidence in it. We shall announce today that on 1 April we shall abolish the introductory payment, equivalent to 25 per cent. of salary, that new sub-postmasters must currently make. We have also created new management posts that will concentrate on rural areas, and we are providing £2 million to pay the capital costs of taking over the running of sub-post offices if local communities wish to do that. Those are important practical measures. [Interruption.]
    A Conservative Member asked the question, but the Conservatives clearly do not want to hear my response. Their party would privatise the Post Office; we are making it plain that we will not go down that particular railtrack.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the week after the forthcoming constituency week is as follows:
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the Administration Committee report on the trial summer reopening of the line of route.
TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Consideration in Committee followed by remaining stages of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the International Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 28 February, there will be a debate relating to the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and to the Court of Auditors' annual report for 1999 in European Standing Committee B.
On Wednesday 28 February there will also be a debate relating to informing and consulting employees in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 March there will be a debate relating to motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
Additionally on Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to health requirements for animal by-products in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of March will be as follows:
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Debate on public funding of civil legal services.
THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Debate on the Social Security Committee report on housing benefit.
456
THURSDAY 22 MARCH—Debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee report on poverty in Scotland.
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Report on electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland.
[Wednesday 28 February 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 21 November 2000, informing and consulting employees. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxx(1999-2000).]
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: (a) 13572/00, European Community Finance; (b) Unnumbered EM submitted by HM Treasury dated 20 December 2000, European Community Finance. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 28-v (2001).
Wednesday 7 March 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 13889/00, Competition in Motor Vehicle Distribution and Servicing. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 28-iii(2000–01).]
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House, although I suspect that her attractive red outfit may be matched by some red herrings in what she has announced. I am sure that it will be comforting to hon. Members of all parties to know that the House will be sitting throughout the month of March.
The House rises today and does not return until Monday 26 February. Under normal circumstances, we would have expected ministerial statements on two pressing matters. The first is the millennium dome, and today's report that there will be a handback clause in the sale agreement—
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: A handbag?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me, so I shall repeat that it is reported that there will be a handback clause in the sale agreement. There is great concern about that, and I am sure that the House would want to hear about the details of the agreement for the disposal of the dome site from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The dome has been a terrible drain on lottery resources, and it is very worrying to think that it will continue to be a drain on taxpayer resources. Will the Leader of the House explain how the Government intend to inform hon. Members about the detail of the agreement, given that the House will be in recess?
The second matter on which we would have expected a statement is the complete failure, announced today, of the Home Office computer system to process asylum applications. For the past four years, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has been challenging Government policy on the matter, often in Opposition time. The Government continued to claim that they were increasing the rate at which decisions were processed, and made no reference to any technical problems with the computer. The Home Office now says that the problems are due to the computer. The Government seem to be falling back on those old chestnuts when a problem arises—it is the

457
fault either of the previous Tory Government, or of the computer. Those excuses are beginning to have about as much credibility as the promise that the cheque is in the post.
Will the Leader of the House say when we can expect a White Paper outlining the consideration given by the Government to the constitutional consequences of scrapping the pound? The matter is especially pertinent, as we heard only this week that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been rebuked by the European Union for spending too much public money. That is our money, and it has been spent in our country. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that for the first time the Chancellor shares with the House how he and the Government came to the decision that there are no constitutional consequences to the policy? Otherwise, we fear that the Chancellor's EU masters will continue to wish to control UK public expenditure, regardless of whether we join the euro.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked about statements on the dome. To the best of my recollection, the fact that discussions on the handling of the dome are continuing is in the public domain. She referred to stories about a handback clause, but I am afraid that I have not seen them. I am sorry to learn that they are causing great concern, but I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is taking such matters into account.
The hon. Lady then moved on to the issue of the Home Office computer system. I know that it is very awkward for Opposition Members that almost all the present computer systems were commissioned by the previous Government, who tied us in to irrevocable contracts. Those contracts had very severe penalties, and we could not abrogate them. I recognise that that is a real source of difficulty, especially on matters such as asylum, out of which the Conservative party is trying to make some mileage.
I heard the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) this morning trying to pretend that no one had ever mentioned problems with the system in the past. I do not know where the right hon. Lady has been, but I remember copious references to the problems. If I heard her correctly, she also alleged this morning that no one had ever said that the system had been commissioned by the Conservative party. I have heard that repeatedly over the past few years—in despairing tones, from ministerial colleague. As I am feeling charitable today, I will say that the right hon. Lady was uncharacteristically inaccurate.
On the question of a White Paper on the constitutional consequences of the euro, as you will be sadly aware, Mr. Speaker, we have been over this territory many times. The Conservative party is completely familiar with the Government's position on the constitutional issues—we do not believe that there is a bar—the moves towards the euro and the five economic tests. There is nothing to add to what has been said so often before.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House will be aware that the International Criminal Court Bill is progressing through the House of Lords. However, I am disappointed that she has not given a date by which it will be debated in the Commons. Could she now do that so that the Bill can get here rapidly? Clearly,
458
the Bill will be an important step forward in dealing with the prosecution of international war criminals and dictators in the future.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's great interest in the Bill, of which he has long been a supporter and advocate. I say to him, gently, that the Bill has not had its Report stage in the House of Lords.
Mr. Corbyn: I said that it was progressing.
Mrs. Beckett: I know, but it has not yet completed its progress. No matter how great the concern, we do not set timetables for debates in this House when the other House is still dealing with a matter. We do not presume to know the judgment of another House until a Bill arrives here.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to a matter that may be of particular interest to you, Mr. Speaker—namely, the report this morning from the Procedure Committee on the election of Speaker? May I ask for an undertaking from the right hon. Lady that the House will have an opportunity to debate this report as soon as possible? Given that the Committee itself seems to have reached a consensus on recommendations to the House—that is broadly representative of the House generally—we may require very little time in the Chamber to deal with the matter. Perhaps the Leader of the House might find such an opportunity even in the week after our constituency week. It is important that the matter be determined before any possible Dissolution. Will she give us that undertaking today?
Secondly, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the report this morning that the official advisers to the Government on the safety aspects of the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services are very concerned about the qualifications of the preferred bidder. Clearly, this problem should be brought before the House as quickly as possible so all Members can see what is involved.
Thirdly, what are the plans for the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill on Tuesday 27 February? The Leader of the House will be aware that substantial amendments are being tabled by the Government to cover huge areas of concern on all sides. Putting aside the personal views that all hon. Members have, I am sure she would agree that we all have a responsibility to make sure that the Bill is workable and practical and meets the anxieties of police forces throughout the country. Can I have an undertaking that, if it proves necessary, amendments will be available before Monday, the day before the debate? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that if additional time is required, we can at least go until midnight that night, if not longer? Perhaps she might negotiate with Conservative Front Benchers who, I understand, share our anxieties about getting the Bill right. Perhaps the Government might like to borrow half a day—or even the whole of the following Opposition day—from the Conservatives so that the House can give the Bill careful consideration.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the publication of the report on the election of a Speaker. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee, and his colleagues for their assiduity and speed in dealing

459
with the matter. I have not had an opportunity to study the report fully, but I understand that it is very good. We all appreciate that.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) knows perfectly well that no Leader of the House would make a commitment ahead of time to dates that have not already been announced. I repeat my comments to the hon. Member for Macclesfield and his colleagues that I understand the House's wish to discuss the matter and make decisions on it. I shall bear that in mind; doubtless it will be discussed through the usual channels.
I have seen the press reports to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred. The Government have always stressed that safety will be an important factor in any decisions. If the press reports are accurate, they will be carefully considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with those issues.
Discussions are under way about the best method of scheduling and debating the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill to ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity to reach a proper decision according to the wish of the majority. I cannot say more now, but those discussions are being undertaken in a spirit that all hon. Members would welcome. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's generous offer of a day of Conservative time.
Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the review of local government finance? Consultation on the Green Paper, which was published last year, ended at the beginning of December. We held a debate only two weeks ago on this year's review, and several hon. Members raised general anxieties about the subject. In the light of those factors, it would be useful to discuss those issues generally before we make a decision on the future of local government finance.
Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. Although the local government grant has increased by 14 per cent. in real terms in the past four years, compared with a cut of 7 per cent. in real terms in previous years, anxiety remains about the underlying structure for settling local government grant. Hon. Members of all parties share that anxiety. I cannot undertake to find time for an early further debate on the matter, but it is hoped that further proposals, perhaps even a White Paper, will be produced later this year.
Sir Norman Fowler: There was much discussion yesterday about long supplementaries, and especially long, rambling replies at Prime Minister's Question Time. Is not that almost implicit in a 30-minute session? Would not the House be better served by a return to two 15-minute sessions a week?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that Opposition Members like to make much of that point because they believe that the Government are somehow in a weak position. However, the Conservative party, not for the first time, is in danger of shooting itself in the foot. As someone who has had more experience than most hon. Members of dealing with Prime Minister's Question Time from the Opposition Benches, I believe that the 30-minute session is much
460
harder for a Prime Minister. It gives a competent Opposition an opportunity to conduct a sustained line of questioning, which pits greater pressure on a Minister and a Prime Minister.
Despite the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about inadequate answers, the Prime Minister's second change, to which Conservative Members never refer for some reason, cut out the time-wasting repetition of the answer, "I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago." The Prime Minister has answered more questions than his predecessor; he answers them well, and the Conservative patty makes an error, not for the first time, in requesting a change.
Mr. David Lammy: The Leader of the House will of course know that, since 1997, my constituency has received a substantial amount of money through regeneration budgets. Will she consider scheduling a debate on the relationship between retailers and multinational fast food chains and urban regeneration in our town centres? I ask that in the light of KFC's decision to pull out—indeed, to chicken out—of Tottenham High road, and our anxiety that other such outlets on our high streets will follow suit.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents recognise the role that the Government have played in putting substantial further resources into the area. However, I also understand the underlying concern that he expresses and that I think is felt in many parts of the country about both the change in our high streets and the way in which that change renders community feeling and the local environment somewhat vulnerable. I sympathise with the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the Chamber on those issues, but he might seek an opportunity in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the right hon. Laity for the very courteous and encouraging response that she gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the Procedure Committee's second report entitled "Election of a Speaker"? May I maximise my charm, diplomacy and persuasion in asking her whether she realises that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—including I think the overwhelming majority of Labour Members let alone Opposition Members—would like to have a debate on that report and to have in place a new system for the election of a Speaker by the end of this Parliament? It is an important issue, and the Procedure Committee undertook the inquiry at the request of the House. May I make that fervent plea for an early debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. He is also entirely right to say that it was very clearly the wish and the will of the whole House not only that such an inquiry be conducted, but that it be conducted expeditiously. As I said, we are all grateful to him and to his Committee for having done so. He will not, I know, expect me to go much further than I already have in answering the question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall. However, I do indeed bear in mind the

461
wish of the House in wanting the report to be carried out, and I have little doubt that it will be the wish of the House for the report to be debated.
Shona McIsaac: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a series of complaints that I have had from residents of Barrow upon Humber about a recent outbreak of lawlessness in the village? They are particularly concerned about cars continuing to park at bus stops and a truck that ended up in a bumper-to-bumper confrontation with a police car—when a bus was not able to proceed up the high street because it was blocked by the truck and a Mercedes was parked in the bus stop. May we therefore have a debate on observing the highway code? The fact that the truck was a "Save the Pound" Tory truck and the Mercedes at the bus stop was owned by a Conservative Member is in no way colouring my views on the issue.
Mrs. Beckett: I am very sorry to hear of the sad experience of my hon. Friend's constituents—
Mr. John Bercow: Devastated.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, indeed, I am devastated, particularly as it would appear that the incident was due either to bad parking by a Tory Member of Parliament or to the lack of progress of a piece of Tory party propaganda on wheels. Clearly, yet not for the first time, a Tory bandwagon has hit some problems. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for debate specifically on that matter.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is there any possibility of a Home Office Minister making a statement to the House on the policy for the treatment of people seeking asylum in this country, giver that genuine asylum seekers would have no objection at all to being held in detention until it was shown that their applications were genuine? It would then be possible to see whether there was any alternative to the Conservative policy of having comprehensive detention, which wail ensure that those who deserve asylum get it and that me vast majority who do not are not able to get into society illegally, as is happening under this Government.
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about sympathy—which does not always shine through on the Opposition Benches—for those who are genuine asylum seekers. Of course we understand the anxiety to ensure that those issues w e properly resolved.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservative policy of universal reception centres. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Government did not implement the policy during the years when they had the opportunity. I have, no doubt in common with other hon. Members, experience of constituents who were here seeking a decision on their case for years under the previous Government without its ever being resolved. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, not only has the Conservative party opposed all the measures that we have introduced to tackle asylum problems but it is CN en opposing the only proposal that has been made so far for a new detention centre, at Aldington. Therefore, although ugh I understand the
462
point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I fear that, not for the first time, the remarks made by members of his party are not consistent with its policy.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we return to the question of the loss of jobs in the steel industry and consider the disgraceful events of yesterday? At dawn, a confident announcement was made of 4,000 jobs for redundant steelworkers. By midday, it turned out that the jobs would probably never be created and, if they were, that few of them would be located in the areas where the steelworkers lived. Is it not grossly unfair to steelworkers to raise their hopes in that way? Was it not reasonable of the steel union to describe yesterday's stunt as "a cruel fantasy"? Would not a debate be an opportunity to appeal to Corms once again to negotiate in a reasonable way with the steelworkers and the Government, instead of indulging with its collaborators in self-serving publicity stunts?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that there is considerable concern about the impact of the Corus changes on the local communities and that the Government are determined to do what we can to assist and will work to provide retraining or other opportunities. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that some of the proposals, when followed through, will not have as much impact as was hoped. He will know that the Government have throughout pressed Corms to reconsider some of its proposals and have consistently offered to do what we can to help. That position remains unchanged.
Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady will be aware that yesterday was one of those rare occasions when the Prime Minister gave a full and enthusiastic answer to one of his hon. Friends about regional government, referring specifically to the north-east. Can she assure my constituents that such a statement does not indicate that the Government have serious intentions of introducing an assembly in the so-called north-west of England? The very thought of another layer of government and even more politicians like us fills my constituents with horror. Their loyalties lie with their town, their county and their country, and there is no room for an alien concept such as the north-west of England, which is merely a geographical expression and carries no sense of identity for the people of my constituency.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, with which I suspect that not everyone in the north-west agrees. We have been consistent in making it plain that, were any proposals to be made for the development of regional government structures, they would be implemented only if that was the wish of the people in the locality. The hon. Gentleman can therefore reassure his constituents that there is no danger of anything being imposed on them against their will.
Mr. David Crausby: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on the obscene profits announced by the oil companies, perhaps with a view to levying a windfall tax in order to compensate motorists?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that great concern has been expressed about the profits of the oil companies, and that that has been drawn to the attention of my right hon.

463
Friend the Chancellor and other right hon. and hon. Friends on repeated occasions. My hon. Friend will know that we look carefully at all the issues and all the complications that arise, but he will also know that, while my right hon. Friend has undertaken to take those matters into account, he has made no commitment on them.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I revert to an important point made by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Why do Her Majesty's Government refuse to make a statement in this place on the dome? Can the Leader of the House not change her mind, even at this late stage? Is she aware that the taxpayer is paying £1 million a month for the care and maintenance of the dome, and that a cosy deal seems to have been struck with the Labour benefactor, Mr. Bourne, whereby his bid can be perpetuated as the sole bid under consideration—notwithstanding the fact that other bidders, such as Mr. Gerbeau, are keen to have their tenders considered? Is that not a scandal? Does the right hon. Lady not realise that obfuscation and flannel by the ignoble peer, Lord Falconer—[Interruption]—in the other place shed no light on the matter and do not reassure the public that an honest deal is being done for the taxpayer and for the country?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to an honourable Member of the House of Lords as "ignoble". Perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Wilkinson: I think Mr. Gerbeau talked about the total ineffectiveness of the Government—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am instructing the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.
Mr. Wilkinson: I withdraw it and say instead "the ineffective peer in the other place".
Mrs. Beckett: With regard to the request for a statement on the dome, I told the shadow Leader of the House that of course the matter is under consideration at present, and will remain so. There is no cause to make a statement at present; no doubt the point will be borne in mind, should the need for such a statement arise.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about a cosy deal, it is not a cosy deal—the matter is in the public domain. Mr. Bourne has indeed been a benefactor to the Labour party—he has been a benefactor to the Conservative party as well.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I know that my right hon. Friend always reads the latest Employment Service statistics with great care. I am sure that she will have been as delighted as I was that they show that youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. since 1997. Could she make time for a debate on youth employment and the success of the Government's programmes, and could particular attention be given to the differential rates below the minimum wage, which are paid to apprentices, as I think that there may be abuse by some companies?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes two powerful points. I have noticed increasingly that observations are
464
made by my hon. Friends about the dramatic fall in youth unemployment and in long-term youth unemployment. I have no doubt that the same phenomenon is occurring in the constituencies of Opposition Members, but for some reason they do not want to mention it very often. The fall in youth unemployment should be a source of great satisfaction to Members on both sides of the House. Nothing could be mere damaging for the future of our country than for the young, in particular, to languish in unemployment and se e their prospects and hopes blighted so early in their lives
I take my hon. Friend's point about the concerns as to the potential for exploitation in the different rates of the minimum wage. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, although my hon. Friend may find that there are opportunities to raise it in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When are we going to have the debate on small businesses? Last week, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the Leader of the House said that many requests w ere received for annual debates and that it was not possible to comply with all of them. Is not this matter different, however? Does the Leader of the House remember that the Labour party made an explicit policy promise in its manifesto at the previous general election that there would be an annual debate on small businesses? Are not he Labour Government reneging on that promise?
Mrs. Beckett: We are not reneging on anything. I am simply unable to announce a date at the present time.
Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on consumer protection? There are two principal reasons. The first is so that the Government can amplify the provisions of the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers". Secondly, such a debate would give the Conservative party the opportunity to explain its consumer protection policies. For example, some Conservative Members supported the Outworking Bill and put their names to it; others opposed on principle providing legal protection from con artists wanting money up front; and those on the Conservative Front Bench, while saying that they agreed with the principles and participating in the debate, absented themselves from the vote, thereby effectively killing the Bill for this Session. Vulnerable people who could have been protected will now have to wait months, perhaps years, as a result of their actions.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know how disappointed he will be that he was unable to make further progress with his Outworking Bill. Sadly, as he will know, it is by no means the first time that Conservative Members have claimed to support legislation, or to be perfectly happy to facilitate its consideration, but the opposite has happened, and they claim it is ill an unfortunate coincidence. He is therefore right to draw attention to that problem, and I share his regret that it is not possible to proceed with his Bill and do more to protect outworkers. I am confident that my hon. Friend, and those like him who genuinely

465
wish to help those who are being exploited, will look for other opportunities to raise the matter, but I fear that I cannot promise a debate on the issue in the near future.
Sir George Young: The Government have made some very controversial changes to our procedures, with a view to injecting some certainty into the legislative programme. Against that background, will the right hon. Lady tell the House how optimistic she is that, by the end of March, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, the Homes Bill and the Hunting Bill will have completed their passage through Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: I should have to check precisely where all those Bills are at present, but the right hon. Gentleman may be inviting me to anticipate some of the decisions of the other place. He is certainly right to say that we have embarked on some experimental changes in procedures, which are controversial, especially among Conservative Members, but have long been recommended by Members on both sides of the House. We believe that as the procedures settle down, they will give the House greater certainty and enable us to deal with legislation more effectively. I am confident that the Government's legislative programme is well on track.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Might my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the administrative costs of social security—in particular, the new Conservative plan to scrap the automatic £200 winter allowance for pensioners, which would be expensive, complex and confusing—
Hon. Members: Order, order.Hon. Members: Order, order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot heat the hon. Gentleman, with hon. Members shouting "order?. Let me hear what he is saying. He might know that the Leader of the House is not responsible for Conservative party policy, but he can continue with the question; I s ant to hear what he has to say.
Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government would find time to debate the administrative costs of social security, so that we could debate issues such as the effect of scrapping the automatic £200 winter allowance for pensioners—a plan that would b not only confusing and complex, but extremely costly. Chat blows a hole in the Conservative party's hollow aspirations to cut the costs of red tape, which are a complete and utter joke.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the concern that any Government should feel about the possibility of a substantial increase in administrative costs for no gain. I understand his wish to debate the possible impact on costs of the policy that the Conservative party currently advocates. Such are the pressures of time,
466
however, that I fear I cannot find time to debate issues such as social security every time that the Conservative party changes its policy.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Leader of the House have any intention of restoring to our timetable the debate on the Standards and Privileges Committee which, rather sinisterly, she pulled out of the timetable last week? Unfortunately, there is a danger of our whole system of self-regulation being irrevocably discredited. The Committee has overridden the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on three occasions, and it so happens that each time a member of the Government was involved: the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), formerly the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), formerly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Chairman himself has been convicted by the commissioner of systematic non-disclosure.
The inquiry into the affairs of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), has dragged on for more than a year and will drag on for even longer because the Committee is hearing witnesses, something which the same Chairman refused to do in the inquiry into the Hamilton affair at the beginning of this Parliament. In fact, he cut off the Committee proceedings when I was about to question Mr. Hamilton, and he prevented us from calling Fayed or any of the other witnesses.
We need to know what is going on. Will the Leader of the House restore that debate to the timetable so that we have an opportunity to express our concerns? I hope that there will also be an opportunity for those concerns to be satisfactorily addressed.
Mrs. Beckett: Although I am somewhat disappointed by what the hon. Gentleman has said and the tone in which he said it, I am in some ways quite pleased that he said it on the Floor of the House, because it enables me to tell him how disgraceful I thought his contribution was on the BBC last week, when he made exactly the same points. He was, as he pointed out, a member of the previous Standards and Privileges Committee, and in consequence I should have thought that he knew better than to try to undermine the work of the present Committee in the way that he has done previously and again today.
I must say two other things to the hon. Gentleman. First, despite his remarks, the Committee's decisions—which it is free to make on behalf of the House, as is right and proper—were unanimous. The Committee makes the decisions that it believes are in the interests of the House. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs the Committee, is held in high esteem and respect in the House, which is more than can be said for the hon. Gentleman at present or will be said if he carries on like this.

NHS Hospital Building
1.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the NHS hospital building programme.
The national health service is in the most prolonged period of expansion in its history. The NHS plan that we published last July set out a major reform programme to accompany the investment that we are making. Extra cash is now beginning to bring on line the extra capacity that the NHS needs to make care better and faster for patients.
This morning, my Department published new figures showing continued growth in qualified staff within the health service. The figures show that in September 2000, compared with September 1999, there were 2,500 more doctors, 3,500 more scientists, therapists and technicians and more than 6,300 more nurses working in the NHS. That means that since 1997, the number of doctors has risen by 6,700, the number of scientists and therapists by 9,600 and the number of nurses by 17,100. Of course, problems do remain with shortages of doctors, nurses and other trained staff, but progress in the health service is now being made.
The NHS plan set ambitious targets for addressing the shortage of trained staff that has bedevilled the NHS for many decades. From April. NHS budgets for training doctors, nurses and other qualified staff will rise by over 11 per cent. Together with the other action that we are taking to recruit and retain more staff, that increase in training budgets will sustain growth in staff numbers not just until 2004, as the NHS plan promised, but until 2010. The record increases in funding which the Government are now making mean that the NHS today is the fastest growing health service of any major country in Europe.
There is a huge amount of catching up to do. Nowhere is that clearer than in the state of NHS buildings. This afternoon, I am publishing a report on the progress that we need to make as a nation in improving the NHS estate and, in particular, in modernising its hospitals. One million patients a week use NHS hospitals. One third of those hospitals were built before the NHS was created, and one tenth date back to Victorian times. We cannot deliver 21st century care in 19th century buildings.
For too long, investment in NHS infrastructure has been a low priority when it should have been a high priority. Capital investment in the NHS was lower at the end of the previous Parliament than it was at the beginning. The consequences are plain for all to see: shoddy buildings, unreliable equipment and out-of-date hospitals. In too many places, the environment in which staff work and patients receive care is simply unacceptable.
We have made a start in putting that right. The biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is already under way. Since 1997, 38 major capital schemes, worth almost £4 billion, have been given the go-ahead. New hospitals are already open in Carlisle, Dartford, south Buckinghamshire, Rochdale and Sheffield. A further five new hospitals are due to open later this year.
The NHS plan set out proposals for a total of 100 new hospital developments in England during the course of this decade. Many parts of the country need those new hospitals—some local communities have been waiting
468
decades for them. In 1997, we established a team of experts—the capital prioritisation advisory group—to advise the Government on which new hospitals should move ahead first. The criteria that the group uses includes an assessment of w here health need is greatest and facilities are poorest.
The group has met during the past few months to advise on the next round of new hospital developments. I am grateful to it for the difficult work that it has had to do. The NHS plan indicated that nine new hospital developments would be given the go-ahead in 2001, with a further nine to follow in 2002. The group considered 29 bids for those 18 new hospital developments. The advice that I have received is that there is a strong case for investment in all 29 proposed schemes. I have accepted that advice. Instead of approving 18 schemes, I am giving the go-ahead to all 29.
I can announce that, during this year, work will begin to procure 12 new hospital developments in Birmingham and Bradford, for Bristol's mental health services, in Central Middlesex, East Kent, Leicester, Lewisham, Peterborough, Salford, Tunbridge Wells, Wakefield and Whipps Cross. Next year, work will begin to procure a further 13 new hospital developments in Brighton, for Bristol's acute services, in Central Nottinghamshire, Chase Farm, Chelmsford, Colchester, Hull, North Middlesex, North Staffordshire, Plymouth, St Helens, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The following year, work will begin to procure a further four new hospital developments in 0xford, Southampton, South Devon and Tameside.
The total projected value of the new hospital developments is £3.1 billion. Each will need to be subject to the normal approvals process and, of course, each will need to confirm viability, affordability and value for money before it is flu ally signed off. The first of the new hospitals will be open by 2006. That is an unprecedented expansion in new hospital developments in the NHS. For millions of patients and thousands of staff, it will provide modern state-of-the-art hospital treatment and care.
Many of the new hospital developments will be delivered through the private finance initiative, if that represents best value for the taxpayer and the NHS. I can confirm that, at the end of the PFI contract, the option will he open for each hospital to become the property of the local health service.
I am also making a further major reform of the PFI process. For too long, hospital developments have been considered in isolation from other changes to local health services. A hospital can only work successfully—for example, avoiding bed blocking and long waiting times—if it works in partner Chip with local primary, community, intermediate and social services. In each of the PFI deals, consideration will need to be given to building alongside a new hospital new primary and intermediate care facilities in the local community to help to ensure more seamless care for local patients. In some cases, that has already happened, spreading the benefits of private finance to other pares of the NHS, where investment is sorely needed.
However, we need to go further still if we are to deliver the shorter waiting times that patients need and good health demands. NHS hospitals deal with almost 4 million emergency admissions a year. They have grown by more than one quarter in the past 10 years. In the NHS,

469
emergencies always come first. That is as it should be, but every year increased emergency admissions displace planned elective admissions. That sometimes means that planned operations are cancelled at the last minute, causing distress for patients and frustration for staff.
The NHS plan announced a new generation of diagnostic and treatment centres to overcome that problem by separating emergency from elective work. Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting one such pioneering centre at the Central Middlesex hospital. As its experience shows, insulating routine hospital operations from often more complex emergency treatment can make a real impact on the time that patients wait for treatment.
Within the hospital developments that I have announced, 16 such new centres will be developed. In addition, similar projects have been agreed at City Birmingham hospital, Dudley, Hinchingbrooke, Kidderminster, Liverpool, Milton Keynes, Ormskirk, Southport, Sutton Coldfield and West Middlesex. In total, we shall invest around £250 million in this new generation of fast-track surgery centres.
The centres will each have distinctive features according to the needs of the local health service, but they will all bring faster care to patients. Patients will be able to book their admissions at their convenience rather than simply being given an appointment time. Some centres will operate at weekends. There will be more day surgery and more same-day test and diagnosis. They will all help to get waiting times down for patients. Crucially, they will mean greater reliability for patients by helping to end the misery of last-minute cancelled operations.
Investment in new hospitals must produce reform in the way in which hospitals deliver care. The problems that patients and staff experience today in the NHS are a product of previous failures not only to invest, but to reform. The resources that we are making available will help to lever in long-overdue changes.
The new hospital developments that I have announced will provide new standards of care for patients and a better working environment for staff. There will be workplace nurseries for staff. There will be no mixed-sex wards, but more single rooms. Patients will have access to a bedside telephone and television, and will have the latest scanning and diagnostic equipment. There will be same-day test and diagnosis facilities to make services faster and more convenient for patients.
There will also be more beds in the new hospitals. For four decades, the number of hospital beds has been falling—157,000 were cut between 1980 and 1997 alone. More than 60,000 of those were general and acute beds. In the year to December 2000, the number of general and acute beds in hospitals started to rise again. I am determined that that trend should now continue.
Overall, these new hospital developments will provide almost 3,000 extra beds on the number currently provided. Indeed, in every single one of the new developments more, not fewer, beds are planned. Moreover, I am issuing to the NHS today new guidance, following the national beds inquiry, which requires each region to expand, not to contract, the number of beds available for patients. The prevailing culture in the NHS has been one of bed closures and cutbacks. That is no longer sustainable. What the NHS needs is more, not fewer, beds.

470
This major programme of investment will bring more staff, more beds and more new hospitals. It will also bring reforms to the way in which health care is delivered. Patients will be treated in modern, high quality facilities with the latest equipment and the best trained staff. Reliability will be improved and waiting times will be cut. Of course it will take time to deliver, but after decades of neglect, the NHS is now set for a decade of sustained growth alongside far-reaching reform.
The choices that we as a Government have made for Britain—economic stability and investment in our key public services—are paying off for the NHS, the staff who work in it and, most important of all, the patients who use it.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement.
Well, well, well; surprise, surprise. Just before announcing the date of the general election, the Government produce a wish list for voters, bribing them with the taxes that they have not yet paid—good old Labour party pork-barrel politics. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for pointing out that 6,700 extra doctors have joined the NHS since 1997. Given, as he frequently points out, that it takes five years to train a doctor, every one of them, by definition, began his training under the previous, Conservative Government as part of our programme of expansion. We also provided extra nurses, thanks to the increase of more than a third in the number of nurse training places between 1994 and 1997. The Secretary of State conveniently forgot to mention those facts.
The right hon. Gentleman's announcement is a sham. He is going for great headlines. Although he says that he is giving the go-ahead for 29 projects, let us consider the buts, and there are many of them. He is giving the go-ahead for 29 projects, but each will need to be subject to the normal approval process. There are 29, but each will have to confirm viability and affordability and, before it is finally signed off, value for money.
The first of the hospitals will be opened by 2006. The Government have failed to deliver in this Parliament and have already guaranteed that, should they be re-elected, they will fail to deliver in the next Parliament.
I shall ask some questions to ascertain whether the statement is anything more than headline and whether there is anything substantive within it. How, in detail, will the projects be funded through PFI? What will be the length of the average contract through PFI? What is the expected rate of return? How many of the current PFI projects in the national health service are behind schedule?
The Secretary of State talks about seamless local care. I ask him to think again about the way in which he describes seamless local care for patients. He talks about building primary and intermediate facilities alongside new hospitals. Seamless care is a function not of geography, but of co-ordination of services. It is of little comfort to patients who might be at the periphery of a health area if everything is concentrated in the centre. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he really means.

I am delighted, at least in principle, by the concept of fast-track units, as the Secretary of State calls them in his announcement. We described them in our "Believing in Britain" document as stand-alone units. The concept has

471
been our policy for some time. I am always ready to welcome the conversion of the Secretary of State to our thinking. In bringing forward the policy, he will have recognised the problems that always exist when attempting to introduce fast-track policies of this nature.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us his estimates for the extra numbers of staff that will be required for the units, and especially his estimates of specialist staff. How will consultant care be divided in the units? Will the same consultants be responsible for all junior staff, even round the clock? These are the practical differences between a headline and a policy.
The Government have missed two factors. First, the Secretary of State says that emergency admissions and displaced planned elective admissions sometimes mean that planned operations are cancelled at the last minute, causing distress for patients and frustration for staff. The greatest problem, in terms of cancellation of operations and frustration for patients and staff, is the Government's waiting list initiative, which throughout the country regularly causes cancellation of operations or worse, forcing surgeons to do things that they do not want to do simply to squeeze more minor complaints through the system to get the waiting list down.
Surgeons at Guy's hospital in London say that they have been asked by management to do fewer hip replacements so that they might deal with more minor complaints in the same amount of time. We think that that is an unethical approach to care and that the Government should abandon that failed policy.
Secondly, the Secretary of State talks about the number of beds, including intermediate care beds. We are seeing a huge reduction in the number of care beds in the community—as many as 50,000 in the current year. That will lead to more bed blocking and less ability to provide intermediate care. It will have a knock-on effect on waiting lists because of cancelled elective surgery.
I ask the Secretary of State to answer eight questions. The number of—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members think that answering questions in the House is bizarre and unusual, but it is why Ministers come to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the extra nurses that he talked about will be full-time equivalents? When does he expect to reach the average European levels of expenditure on health to which he alluded? What will the length of the PFI contract be for new projects? What will the rate of return be on these contracts? How many current PFI programmes in the NHS are behind schedule? Can he confirm that the option to return a building to the NHS already exists under PFI and is nothing new? What extra staff will be required for stand-alone units and how will they be recruited? How many care home beds does the Secretary of State estimate will be lost this year, making bed blocking more acute?
We await answers to those detailed questions; that is the difference between a Government who live by headlines and a Government who have thought through their policy. We shall judge the Government not on the promises that they are making today, but on their delivery. They promised to cut waiting lists, yet lists have gone up; cut NHS bureaucracy, yet it has increased; abolish trolley waits, yet they are still there; and get rid of mixed-sex
472
wards, yet they still exist. We judge the Government by what they have done, not by what they promise, and so will the British people
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Are you going to vote against it?
Dr. Fox: You silly man
Mr. Milburn: If I may interrupt the dialogue, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) started by praising his party's record. If he wants to quote his party's record, perhaps he will stand by the record that meant that the number of nurse training places were cut under the previous Government, as were the number of GP trainees. They fell by a quarter under the previous Government, whereas they are rising by a quarter under this Government.
I shall deal with the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. The number of extra nurses, doctors and so on that I announced—which, indeed, were announced earlier today—are head court figures, as they were in the NHS plan. The length of the contract for PH deals will vary according to local circumstances. We expect that many contracts will be between 15 and 30 years. As for the cost of the contracts and extra personnel to the revenue budgets of the NHS, we expect that it will amount to an extra £300 million of revenue commitments for the NHS, which it is well capable of affording, given the increases that we have made.
On the number of contracts that are behind schedule, I can confirm that not a single contract is behind schedule. Indeed, many PFI contracts are coming in on time and ahead of schedule. The hon. Gentleman said that the option to return to NHS ownership at the end of a contract is nothing new. Well it was not new under the previous Government because that was not how PFI operated then. We made the change to PFI contracts; in fact, I made it when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That is a new development for PFI.
The hon. Gentleman started with a rather outlandish allegation that the programme was a form of electioneering. It is a strange form of electioneering for a Labour Secretary of Slate to agree to hospitals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary; in Colchester, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Transport Minister; and in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the shadow International Development Secretary. It is an odd Labour Secretary of State who embarks on electioneering and agrees to new hospitals in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. It is a very odd Labour Health Secretary who agrees to two hospitals in the constituency of the shadow Health Secretary.
The one thing that the hon. Gentleman failed to do in his speech was confirm that he would match our spending on those new hospitals. The truth is that he cannot match it. He cannot match us on doctors, nurses, beds and

473
hospitals because there is a big difference between the parties: the Conservative party is always committed to cuts in public services, whereas the Labour party is committed to investment in public services.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for his statement this afternoon? On behalf of my constituents in Norm triton and throughout the Wakefield area, may I give a big thanks, because Pinderfields hospital is in my constituency, and that is where the new development will take place?
It has taken four years of Labour Government to provide a new hospital. We appealed for 18 years under the Tories, but got nowhere and today we heard sour grapes from the shadow Health Secretary. We must now get on with the job.
Primary health care provision was allied to my right hon. Friend's statement. Will action be taken to reduce the waiting time to see general practitioners in many of the primary care group areas? Will he assure me that a monitoring system will be established to ensure that PFI delivers the work and goods, as it v, ould be in relation to provision funded by taxation? On behalf of staff and patients at Pinderfields hospital, I express my hope that there will be a speedy start to the development of hospital services.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Wakefield development involves £164 million of investment. As he knows, it is long overdue in the area and will bring benefits to the local health service. However, there will not only be a new hospital at Pinderfields general; I can confirm that the development will also involve additional primary and intermediate care facilities in the north Kirklees area. That is good overall news for the local health service.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the announcement of the new hospitals and the new emphasis on scanning and diagnostic equipment. However, does the Secretary of State recognise that the real issue is not beds or bricks and mortar, but lack of staff? Is not that at least part of the reason why the first of the hospitals will open in 2006? Has not the use of PFI been the cause of some delay in hospital building, especially in respect of smaller community hospitals in places such as Tiverton and Frome in Somerset? Many of those hospitals feel that development has been delayed specifically because of PFI. Why is there not available in the, public domain more information that compares the value for money of the PFI programme with that of direct financing, and why have some parliamentary questions on the subject taken as long as a year to answer? What level of NHS expertise exists for securing best value for the taxpayer from the PFI programme?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is aware, as we all are, that the trained staff that the NHS needs can be got from somewhere. We are making progress. We have more nurses and doctors and we are getting more radiographers and so on into the system. That is precisely what is needed, but it can be done only through training and recruitment. To achieve that, we must ensure not only the right incentives and pay structures, but the right environment for staff to work in. That is why the new facilities, including new nurseries and so on, will make a
474
genuine difference for staff when they come on line. We shall get there in time. We have today made an important commitment not only to build more new hospitals, but to train more staff for the future. If I could train more staff more quickly, I would gladly do so, but the simple answer is that it takes time.
I think that the hon. Gentleman and his party are wrong about PFI. I know that there are concerns about it in various parties, but we have today shot one of the major foxes—apart from the one on the Opposition Front Bench—in respect of cuts in bed numbers and PFI. People have said in the past that PFI inevitably leads to fewer beds, but I am afraid that the only thing to which it inevitably leads is more hospitals.
Mrs. Llin Golding: On behalf of the people of north Staffordshire, I thank my right hon. Friend for this truly wonderful news. Having worked in North Staffordshire hospital, I know how much it will mean not only to patients, but to staff. On behalf of north Staffordshire Members of Parliament, may I ask him to receive a delegation to discuss the extension of the medical facility at Keele university? As a former radiographer, I have another question: will he also discuss with us the re-establishment of a school for radiographers?
Mr. Milburn: I am tempted to say that every silver lining has a cloud, but that would be unkind to my hon. Friend and to the other Labour Members who represent north Staffordshire constituencies. They came to see me some months ago and I know that they have campaigned assiduously for the development and that the local newspaper has also campaigned extremely hard. I am aware of the problems in north Staffordshire, which has two sites with old buildings, dilapidated equipment and an environment that is suitable neither for staff nor for patients. We can begin today to put that right. It will take some time to get there, but we will do so, and my hon. Friend's constituents will have precisely the sort of modern and up-to-date facilities that they have long deserved.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Just as I welcomed announcements of new hospital buildings under Conservative Governments, I welcome the same announcements from a Labour Government. I will welcome such developments even more when they are built—if they are built. But what a great shame that I cannot join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and welcome a new hospital in south Staffordshire. The Minister talked about Leicester and Lewisham, but he did not mention Lichfield. What can he say today to reassure people in my constituency who, for the past three and a half years, have known that our minor injuries unit, renal dialysis unit, day surgery unit and maternity unit are under threat, if not that the Victoria and Hammerwich hospitals are under threat of total closure? Can he give them any reassurance?
Mr. Milburn: I shall gladly look at the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but if I were him I would be cautious. Before he starts making commitments that his Front-Bench spokesmen clearly are not prepared to

475
make, he and his party must say where on earth they will get the resources from to pay for additional beds or new hospitals. Unless he does that, his points are irrelevant.
Ms Joan Ryan: On behalf of my constituents and all the people of Enfield, I should like to say how important and welcome is today's announcement of the success of the bids not just for Chase Farm hospital but also for North Middlesex hospital, which will make a big difference to the delivery of health care in Enfield.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about expansion under the previous Government, but my right hon. Friend will know from our meetings that, for many years, Chase Farm hospital was under threat of closure. Because of that threat, it was badly run down and local people lost confidence in it, and, when the Government were elected, staff morale was at the lowest possible point. Labour promised that we would turn all that round and that Chase Farm would have a secure future. I am so pleased that we can say today that we are delivering on that promise, and that Chase Farm has a secure future and will go from strength to strength in serving the people of Enfield. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust and the North Middlesex Hospital NHS trust, the senior management and all the staff on their work in making the bids robust and successful?
Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to all involved in putting together the bids, which require a huge amount of effort and work. A great volume of papers has rightly to be prepared. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked earlier about the approvals process, but it would be pretty surprising if we did not have a proper approvals process to demonstrate affordability and value for money—precisely the sort of things that are necessary in the NHS. I also pay tribute to the staff at Chase Farm who have sometimes worked in pretty difficult surroundings. I hope that today's announcement will bring them good heart and good cheer and a bit of optimism for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief during statements. The House will realise that there is a time limit on the important debate which follows. I appeal for brief questions so that as many Back Benchers as possible can participate.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Secretary of State's announcement will be welcome to many hospitals, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Bedford hospital has been very much at the end of the line for finance since the old days of the resource allocation working party. It desperately needs a new mortuary. Can he hold out any hope from these announcements that it will get one promptly? What can he say on this important subject?
Mr. Milburn: The situation in Bedford will be a matter for local and regional discretion. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the Government are dramatically increasing capital budgets, first to the regions and then to the individual trusts. More money will go to
476
the trusts than ever before, and they have a discretion to use that as they see fit. It is not for me to second-guess that. If there is a problem in the provision of mortuary pathology services, that should be taken up with the trust management and the regional office management. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would care to write to me about specific matters, I shall be glad to consider them.
Mr. Alan Meale: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on these magnificent and momentous decisions which are much in line with the approach of previous Labour Governments to the national health service, and contrary to the weasel words of the Opposition, who have tried to turn this into a party political issue connected with the general election. As the Secretary of State said, some of the new hospitals will be in Tory constituencies.
May I say on behalf of the people of central Nottinghamshire, particularly those who work in the health service, that, with the Secretary of State's help, we will make every endeavour to deliver and to continue to improve our health services in the area?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has spoken to me about the problem in the Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust, specifically at King's Mill hospital. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the local community. Frankly, this investment should have been made in these areas many years ago. Everyone understands that—the opportunity was there. For 18 years, another Government were in power who could have made that capital investment. Sadly, they decided to put other priorities first. Their priority was not investment in the national health service.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I take the Secretary of State's statement at face value. It indicated a huge additional investment in the health service. I share the gratitude of north Staffordshire for the huge capital project in the area that will benefit many of my constituents. Will he give an assurance that it is not just the number of patients treated in the NHS that matters, but the outcome of those projects. Will he assure me that the position of those with mental illness and chronic illness will not be overlooked under the NHS plan and in the encouraging announcement that he has just made? He knows my interest in the definition of personal social care, and the ability of people with chronic illness to get the medical treatments they need, which sadly they often have to pay for.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is well versed in these issues, and widely respected on both sides of the House for his views on the national health service. He is right that the NHS is having to manage more mental illness and chronic illness than at any time before. I am pleased that there will be facilities for people with chronic illness and mental illness, including a provision in Bristol, in the area of his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
Mr. Marsha Singh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement? I am absolutely thrilled, as the people of Bradford will be, because the hospitals in my constituency serve all of

477
Bradford. I am delighted that, after years of health service cuts, we now have a Government who deliver on their promises. We do not need to electioneer on this subject, because my constituents know that the health service will not be safe under the Tories, whereas it is under Labour. [Interruption.]
Mr. Milburn: Wait until the real electioneering starts!
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The announcement about Bradford involves a significant investment—more than £100 million. I am well aware that some of the buildings at the Bradford Royal infirmary date from the 1930s, and that at the St. Luke's site they date back even before that to the 19th century. I am well aware of the difficulties that staff and patients have had to put up with for many years. I hope that we can make a start on the project in the Bradford area as soot as possible. It will increase the number of beds, and provide investment in extra rehabilitation services that are sorely needed.
Mr. David Heath: The majority of the announcements were about large, acute hospitals serving urban populations. What progress is being made on replacing community hospitals, which often face the same problems as old, Victorian buildings in need of refurbishment? They serve smaller towns and rural areas, and include the Victoria hospital, Frome in my constituency.
Mr. Milburn: That is an important issue. The Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), has today announced extra investment o1 £13.6 million in one such community hospital at Sheppey to modernise its facilities. It is important that we apply the same rigour to smaller developments as we apply to big acute schemes. When we came to office, there were many developments in the pipeline that were not getting anywhere. We had to take some difficult decisions about prioritisation. We have done that, and it is now paying dividends. Communities are beginning to get the acute hospitals that they need. I now want to move on to the next phase.
We need to advance the private finance initiative, so that the benefits of private finance go beyond purely the acute sector and into the immediate sector, primary care and the development of community hospitals.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement, particularly in the context of its effect on mental health services in the Bristol area. There were many other good things in the announcement, but the five Bristol Members have pressed my right hon. Friend for such a statement for some time.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was incredibly curmudgeonly, given that his constituents will also benefit?
Mr. Milburn: At best, it was politically inept. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome two major developments in his area. I find it bizarre that he did not, and I shall be interested to see his press releases later.
478
My hon. Friend has lobbied and campaigned assiduously for these developments for many years, in the context of both acute and mental health services. They are long overdue, and I hope that they are warmly welcomed in the area.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that those representing the constituencies in which hospitals have been announced will, when they are built—if they are built—be as pleased as I was when Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital was built in Margate. Along with many other hospitals, it was built under the last Government. The Secretary of State should bear in mind the fact that building hospitals is not the prerogative of any one Government; it is welcomed on both sides of the House.
The Secretary of State said that modern medicine could not and should not be practised in out-of-date, clapped-out hospitals. Nunnery Fields hospital, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), is one such: it needs to be closed, and indeed it was scheduled for closure.
Because of the closure of so many residential and nursing home beds—the Secretary of State did not comment on that when asked about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—we have a desperate shortage of beds, and a problem of bed blocking, in east Kent. The Secretary of State has two letters from me on his desk on the subject, awaiting answer. Will he give an undertaking that Nunnery Fields hospital will not close until a replacement has been provided, and that this glossy programme will include such a replacement?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a lot of new hospital development under the last Government. Let me correct him. Between 1980 and 1997, the last Government gave the go-ahead for seven hospital schemes worth over £40 million. During our first three years in office, we gave the go-ahead for 33 schemes worth over £40 million. The hon. Gentleman should put the situation in perspective.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has had to make difficult decisions about his position relating to the reconfiguration in east Kent, and I am well aware of the local controversy surrounding the issue. I hope that today's announcement of an investment of £102 million in new facilities in east Kent will help.
As for bed blocking, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have made resources available to Kent county council, and have also provided resources for intermediate services through the PFI. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about social services expenditure in the area, he might have a word with his Front-Bench team, and persuade them to give a commitment to match our additional expenditure on social services.
Ms Joan Walley: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), and say a big thank you on behalf of everyone in north Staffordshire who has supported the campaign of the local newspaper, The Sentinel, and every member of the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS trust who has worked hard—under the leadership of David Fillingham—to get the bid

479
together and meet the deadlines? May I also thank my right hon. Friend for taking a personal interest in the health needs of north Staffordshire?
Will my right hon. Friend tell us how much money north Staffordshire will receive? May I invite him to visit the area, and to take a close interest in every single development that takes place?
This is wonderful news, and we have real cause for celebration after all those years of no investment.
Mr. Milburn: They do not give up in north Staffordshire!
I will try to pay the area a visit. On the investment, we have put in £224 million. That is a very substantial amount, but the state of the buildings means that it is needed. It will mean that there will be 131 additional beds in the area overall, and I hope that that will be much welcomed too.
Another pleasing element of the north Staffordshire proposals is that the people in the hospital got together with those in the primary care and the community sectors to agree a joint bid. I hope that that will mean that a great many patients may not need to go to hospital at all. That is a good thing: it is a model proposal and it is quite right for us to give it the go-ahead.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State understand that, although his promise of new facilities at Kidderminster looks like a pretty straightforward bribe to save the Wyre Forest seat at the next election, it should still be good news for many of my constituents in Worcestershire too? However, given the higher mortality rate that always couples out-of-hours surgery and the risks associated with any invasive surgery, is he satisfied that it is safe to provide such a facility many miles from the nearest district general hospital?
Mr. Milburn: I am satisfied about that. The hon. Gentleman alludes to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. My hon. Friend has worked long and hard to secure that investment for his constituents. He has not been helped by those in the area who have ignored the best clinical advice, which comes from local consultants and GPs. They confirm what we know—that, sadly, it is not clinically safe to continue to provide the existing range of services in Kidderminster. We are doing what must be done, and ploughing in the additional investment for which my hon. Friend has quite rightly campaigned. I am very pleased that we have been able to give that investment the go-ahead, so that the Kidderminster area can have the modern, up-to-date facilities—and the new type of hospital—that it needs.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I too welcome today's announcement of significant investment in Birmingham. That investment will go on new facilities at the City Birmingham hospital, and on a new hospital to replace the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals. We have waited a very long time to replace the mixed-sex wards in old Victorian work houses, such as those that I visited at Selly Oak last month. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable anxiety that
480
the taxpayer should not be taken for a ride by private finance companies. Will he assure my constituents that, if public finance proves to offer better value, it will be made available within the same time scale as private finance?
Mr. Milburn: Yes that is always the case. We test developments to determine what will provide the best value for money—providing public-sector cash through the Exchequer, or getting the investment from the private sector. In fact, my hon. Friend will know that the public sector provides the cash anyway. In a sense, it is the same as taking out a mortgage, which is what everyone does to buy a house. It should be no different when it comes to paying for hospitals. At the end of the period—30 years, or whatever it is—if the local health service wants to have the hospital back, that is fine and dandy: the local service will get it back.
When I inspected some of the facilities in Birmingham, I was impressed by the strength of the case mounted by the local health service, and depressed by the state of some of the buildings. They are very old and extremely dilapidated, and this investment is long overdue. I believe that the investment of almost £300 million in new facilities in the Birmingham area will make a substantial difference to health care for patients and to the working environment for staff.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Today's statement by the Secretary of State is very bold, and welcome for that reason. Will he explain why the proposals do not amount to privatisation? The Labour party was dead against the private finance initiative before the 1997 general election. He will know that the Duchess of Kent's hospital in Catterick—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—recently closed. Will he assure the House that, in addition to the expenditure announced in today's statement, extra resources will be given year on year to hospitals such as the Friarage, so that they can take the additional patients that the NHS now has to treat?
Mr. Milburn: With respect, that is precisely what is happening. For the next financial year from April 2001, health authority budgets will be growing by, on average, 8.9 per cent. I cannot remember the figure for North Yorkshire, but it is a substantial amount of money. Frankly, whereas the previous Government failed to put in that investment, this Government are making that investment. The hon. Lady asks what privatisation is. It is forcing people to pay for their hip, knee, hernia and cataract operations: the policy of her hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I thank my right hon Friend warmly on behalf of the people of Milton Keynes for his announcement today of a diagnostic and treatment centre at Milton Keynes general hospital. I welcome the recognition of the special problems that Milton Keynes faces because of its fast population growth of 5 per cent. every year. Will my right hon. Friend contrast today's announcement with the historic underfunding of Milton Keynes, as part of Buckinghamshire, under the Conservatives?

481
Given that there are 16 new centres, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to encouraging networking between them and the existing centre at the Central Middlesex, so that the lessons can be learned about the most effective way to run such centres?
Mr. Milburn: That is an extremely sensible suggestion. We are talking about a new type of development for the NHS, so it would be sensible to learn from experience and from the success at the Central Middlesex. Milton Keynes will receive an additional £9 million of investment in the local community health service. My hon. Friend has raised the rate of population growth with me on a number of occasions, including in our discussions about this new development. I am pleased to tell her that the proposal that we have accepted today will bring about a 16 per cent. increase in the number of operations in the local area.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on this unprecedented announcement? I have been here for a long time and there never has been such an announcement before. In congratulating him on the proposed new build, I welcome also the plans to recruit and retain even more nurses, doctors, therapists, scientists and technicians. There Will be some envy in those constituencies that are not currently benefiting from the additional money. Will the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland be kept advised of the excellent progress being made in the NHS here to ensure that we can maintain comparable standards?
May I personally thank the Secretary of State for the decision that has not yet been mentioned—to provide patients with privacy and dignity by getting rid of mixed wards?
Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In this day and age, people should expect that, if they go into hospital, the basics will be right; the food should be good, the care should be provided, the wards should be clean and they should be given privacy and treated with dignity, particularly as so many people who use hospitals are elderly. That is precisely what we must provide and what will be possible in the new hospital developments. Over time, we will make that possible everywhere. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have
482
regular dialogue between the four United Kingdom Health Ministers, and I very much hope that that continues in the future.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Substantial numbers of my constituents are treated daily at Pinderfields hospital in temporary huts that were erected for casualties of the second world war. I listened with amazement to the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in response to this statement. In 18 years, all we got in Wakefield from the Conservative Government in response to our problems was a private hospital, built at Methley Park, which drew staff out of the NHS to treat people in the private sector. I warmly welcome the Government's announcement today.
In respect of PFI—which may be applied in many of the schemes—there are anxieties among low-paid, non-clinical staff about their treatment. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to ensure that those people are properly valued within the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: On the last issue, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have changed the rules. Under the previous Government, the policy was one of compulsory competitive tendering and compulsory market-testing. Inevitably, that meant that in every one of the PFI deals that went ahead, low-paid staff were automatically transferred out to the private sector. That is no longer the position. It is now a matter of discretion for the local trust to determine whether it wants to retain services such as catering, portering and cleaning in-house, or to transfer staff to the private sector. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken important steps to protect staff better if they transfer.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has campaigned long and hard for a new hospital in Wakefield. He knows that I am aware of the appalling facilities that staff and patients have had to tolerate at Pinderfields. He knows fine well that the local community, unlike those on the Opposition Front Bench, will welcome today's announcement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately we must move on.

Points of Order
2.5 pm
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me take the point of order of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has given notice of it.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, the Government leaked details of their proposals on competitiveness to the press well before the documents were available to hon. Members. In answering a point of order from me, you said that you took the matter seriously, and you asked the Secretary of State to investigate the leak and report the results to the House.
Today, the Department of Trade and Industry has replied to a parliamentary written question. The answer is inadequate. It refers to the receipt of details only by the Financial Times. However, it was clear from my original point of order on the matter that other newspapers were given information. For example, The Daily Telegraph carried a full and detailed quote, which exactly matches page 5 of one of the documents.
Furthermore, the so-called investigation simply refers to the documents being "obtained by" the Financial Times. We know how they were obtained; the front page of the Financial Times refers to a DTI insider, who provided the information. The DTI investigation ignored that, and the reply therefore implies that the documents were stolen by the press rather than handed out by members of the Government or those who work for them.
The investigation is incomplete and partial. It is a further abuse, and shows contempt of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to accept a brush-off, indeed, a defiance of your initial ruling, but to ask the Department to try a little harder to ascertain the way in which the leak happened, and who was responsible for leaking documents in advance and thus denying the House its scrutiny role.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As he said, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has answered a parliamentary question about the circumstances surrounding the publication of the White Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the response, he is entitled to pursue the matter through other
484
parliamentary means, including tabling further questions to the Secretary of State. If he does that, I shall be very interested to read the answers.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the Procedure Committee report on the election of a Speaker. It is an excellent report which I contributed. However, page xxxvi reports on the only Division that took place during our formal proceedings. The Division list shows that the majority of the Committee supported the proposal for an alternative vote. However, the report concludes that the exhaustive ballot proposal was the Committee's preferred option. Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, on the way in which the conflict between the text of the report and the outcome of the Division, as reported in the proceedings, can be resolved? How can we proceed?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that the report was published with great speed. Unfortunately an error was made in printing a Division list in the minutes of the proceedings. A correction is being issued.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker Could you arrange to set the record straight? The Secretary of State for Health said that Whipps Cross hospital was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). Although the hospital serves the hon. Gentleman's constituents—who will benefit enormously—it is in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. I thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the constituents of Leyton and Wanstead and of all the surrounding areas for giving the go-ahead for that £184 million project.
Mr. Speaker: Then that hospital has a very good Member of Parliament.

BILL PRESENTED
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Secretary Clare Short, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Cook Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. George Foulkes and Mr. Chris Mullin, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the provision of assistance for countries outside the United Kingdom; to make provision with respect to certain international financial institutions and the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 26 February, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 49].

Phillips Inquiry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Mr. Speaker: We come now to the main business. I remind the House that I have put a 15-minute limit on speeches from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm.
2.10 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 26 October 2000, the Government published the report of the BSE inquiry. I set out the report's key conclusions and outlined a package of measures for the benefit of people suffering from variant CJD and the families of those who have already died of the disease. The House will want to mow that, since that time, another six people have died of variant CJD, bringing the number who have died to 86. The variant CJD surveillance unit has identified eight people who are suffering from variant CJD.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced his intention to make interim compensation payments of £25,000 to each of the families of those who have died and to the families whose loved ones are still alive. He has already established a care package for people suffering from variant CJD which is intended to support patients in the community. The care package covers the elements of care that cannot be readily supplied by local health and social services. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will give further details of the care package and compensation arrangements when she replies to the debate.
Last Friday, the Government published their substantive interim response to the BSE inquiry report, with positive responses to each of the 167 recommendations. The response sets out what has already been done, what is under way, what more the Government intend to do, and how others will be involved in the final outcome. The interim response pros ides the basis for a wide-ranging public consultation before a comprehensive final response is published later this year. I published the response last Friday to give parliamentarians and others a chance to consider the proposals before today's debate.
The inquiry team found serious shortcomings in the previous Government's handling of BSE. The inquiry's report documents institutional and political failure up to the highest levels. There was an inability to focus clearly on the emerging problem of BSE in cattle and to take charge. Many of those dealing with the problem hoped and believed that a link between BSE and human health would never be found. No contingency plans were made in case a link was discovered. Public protection measures were not implemented and enforced with sufficient vigour.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Although I appreciate that the Minister did not have responsibility for agriculture at the time, does he recall that, as long ago as July 1992, I and others were asking questions about the reticence of the then Ministry about the precise issues to which he is now referring? Does he recognise that the Phillips report demonstrates that the answers that we were given in this place were misleading and inadequate? I do not know whether that was intentional or unintentional,
486
and the Phillips report does not address that issue. Is the Minister aware, however, that farmers and CJD families feel bitterly betrayed by the failure of everyone who was in office at that time to apologise or to explain the misinformation that was given to the House and the public?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his own way, and of course he anchors his remarks in the Phillips report. I am being very careful—the matter is of course contentious and enormously important—to ensure that, as I go through the criticisms of the Government's handling of BSE, every single point that I make is founded in the Phillips report. The issue of communication between Departments is clearly referred to in Phillips. Phillips said that a lack of communication led to delays in taking necessary action.
It is telling that, on issues of interdepartmental communication and contingency planning, not one but two former Cabinet Ministers had their evidence rejected by the inquiry. In some crucial spheres, BSE policy was slow in development, sometimes lagging behind the latest scientific developments. The official line, that the risk of transmissibility was remote and that beef was safe, did not recognise the possible validity of any other view. Dissident scientists tended to be treated with derision. Dispute displaced debate.
Ministers and officials tended to be over-reliant on scientific advisory committees for policy advice. They failed to recognise that the proper role of advisory committees is to advise on science, not to make decisions for the Government on issues of policy and implementation. The Government's scientific advisers were not always given a complete picture of what was happening "on the ground" in terms of enforcement and implementation. Consequently, on certain occasions, scientific advice was not based on the full facts as known to the then Conservative Government.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there were attempts by senior civil servants to lean on scientists to suppress their data and interpret them in a manner that fitted in with the political picture at that time?
Mr. Brown: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it is not founded in Lord Phillips's findings themselves. I want to confine my comments to Lord Phillips's findings. There is ample evidence of failings—institutional failings and political failings—in Lord Phillips's findings to give parliamentarians on both sides of the House tremendous cause for concern.
Lord Phillips's inquiry identified significant failures in enforcement of safety measures. Lord Phillips explicitly says that that was made worse by the prevailing political desire for a "culture of deregulation".
From as early as 24 February 1988—this relates to the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—Ministers were aware of concerns among civil servants about a possible link between BSE and human health. Those concerns were not shared with the public. The Government failed to be completely open about BSE and did not trust the public to understand

487
complex issues of risk and uncertainty. That resulted in a presentational policy whose object, in Lord Phillips's own words, "was sedation".
Mr. Eric Martlew: I have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lowther, of Cumbra Park hotel, in Carlisle. Their daughter Victoria was one of the very early tragic victims of variant CJD. They have asked me to ask various questions, which I shall do in writing to the Minister so that he is able to respond to them in detail. I should like, however, to deal with two points. First, Mr. and Mrs. Lowther have studied the Phillips inquiry very carefully, but have come to the conclusion that it poses more questions than it answers. Secondly, if what the Phillips inquiry says is correct, why is no one standing trial? Why are not ex-Ministers or senior civil servants standing trial for what some people believe is the manslaughter of at least 86 people to date, and probably many hundreds in the future?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Minister responses, may I appeal to the House for very short interventions? There is very limited time for today's debate and the many important points that I know that hon. Members are keen to make. Brevity would be appreciated by everyone.
Mr. Brown: Lord Phillips is very clear on the point of individual blame. However, although shortcomings and failings of individuals are identified and carefully listed in the report, Lord Phillips says something to the effect that those who come to our report looking to allocate blame to individuals will go away disappointed. He identifies institutional failings and political failings, but he does not put the blame for the tragedy that has occurred on any one individual.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has just stated that, in 1988, certain civil servants felt that some of the information available then should have been shared with the public. Is he of that view?
BrownI am being careful to respond to Lord Phillips's findings because that is my responsibility as a Minister. I published the interim response in advance so that we could all read it. The report contains 167 recommendations and we all have a right to consider the Government's interim response. I do not want to go further than what Lord Phillips has said and found, and I am being careful not to treat the House to my personal views. Having studied the matter with some care as part of my ministerial responsibility, I have of course formed personal views, but my responsibility to the country as a Minister has to come first.
Lord Phillips makes it clear that in giving public assurances about the safety of beef, it was a mistake for Ministers to go beyond the advice that they had received from officials. I have learned that lesson, and I do not intend to make that mistake. Ministers should have stressed the important role of public protection measures rather than giving the impression that BSE did not pose a risk to humans. The consequence was that when the link between BSE and vCJD was announced, the public felt betrayed—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
488
Lord Phillips found that, for the human victims of variant CJD, there was significant variation in the standard of care provided by the national health service. Let me remind the House that variant CJD is a terrible disease. For some of the victims and their families, the tragic horror of the disease was made more difficult to bear by lack of appropriate treatment, assistance and support. Those were Lord Phillips's findings.
Although the inquiry looked primarily at how the previous Government responded to the challenges of BSE and vCJD, it raised issues that went much wider than BSE. Those issues, affect the whole process of government, across all Departments.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is obviously a difficult issue, but given the lateness with which the link was recognised and acknowledged and the long interval that could still lead to a substantial number of cases, is the Minister satisfies that we have enough research and investment in place? If and when we find that this is a much bigger problem than 86 people—which could still happen—we should know how to deal with it. We should use the time lag to prepare.
Mr. Brown: The amount of research that the Government are undertaking into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies has been enhanced in my time as Minister. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are still things that we do not understand. It is important to keep the research programme fully funded and properly developing. As for the total number of human victims, I am satisfied that the public protection measures now in place protect the public, but I cannot give the House a forecast of how many victims of what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s there maybe.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is confident that the measures in place to protect the public are adequate. Will he say a word about the methods used to incinerate and dispose of infected carcases? Does he have every confidence in those methods and is he sure that there is no risk to public health from those processes?
Mr. Brown: I am satisfied that that is the case. I recently visited one of the disposal plants, in Widnes, with my Spanish counterpart, who is interested in how we organise these things here. I am satisfied that the arrangements in place now are satisfactory and secure. We do not know how much variant CJD is present in the population as a result of things that happened in the past. Until we do, it is difficult to give the House accurate forecasts of the future number of victims of the condition.
The whole affair has raised wider issues than BSE; it goes to the heart of how government works. A number of major cross-cutting topics run right through Lord Phillips's report and findings. I shall run through the principal ones. Lord Phillips identifies the need for effective management of scientific advisory committees and of how scientific advice is used in developing policy; the need for greater openness in government; and the need for a consistent and proportionate approach to the assessment, management and communication of risk and uncertainty. It is a notoriously difficult area.
Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is touching now on the open provision of

489
information to the public. I know his personal views on the matter, which are robust. Why did the Government resist the amendments tabled by me and many others to the Freedom of Information Bill, which would have entrenched in statute the right to information and factual advice provided to Ministers—exactly the core of Lord Phillips's findings?.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is putting two separate sets of advice together. One is the scientific advice on which Ministers base their policy decisions. It is the Government's view that that should be in the public domain. The other is policy advice to Ministers. Ministers are clearly entitled to consider a range of options before coming forward and defending what they have done. The hon. Gentleman takes me slightly outside my ministerial responsibilities.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I understand that the criticisms levelled at serving civil servants have been reviewed by Sheila Forbes and that the report is now complete. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful for hon. Members to have seen the report ahead of the debate? Does he intend to publish it so that we know what it contains?
Mr. Brown: I have thought carefully about that. I have not read the report, although I can do so. I have deliberately not done so because I believe that disciplinary matters within the civil service must be for permanent secretaries and ultimately the Cabinet Secretary. We should think carefully before we, as parliamentarians, decide to make assessments about the capabilities of individual civil servants. We should also think about when we should intervene and when we should not. If the House wants me to read the Forbes report, I will, but it is my considered view that I should not, and that it should be left to the permanent secretaries.
Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has made a robust response to the issue, on which I congratulate him. He said in an interview on 12 February:
"The scientific advice that informs the ministerial decisions that I make is all going to go into the public domain."
That is excellent. Will that apply across government? Will all the scientific advice to Ministers be public?
Mr. Brown: I shall answer to the House for what I am accountable for. The scientific advice that informs my ministerial decision making will go into the public domain. That is my commitment to the House and my response to my hon. Friend's question. There may be all sorts of caveats involved in other Ministers' day-to-day operations of which I am not aware, so I cannot give a blanket response; but where a policy decision is made in MAFF and that decision is informed by scientific appraisal, the appraisal will be put into the public domain. People will be able to read it, and I will explain and justify the decisions that I have made. Ultimately, as the Minister, I am accountable to the House.
Lord Phillips identifies the need for rigour in the development and implementation of policy. Of course, we all want to be rigorous in the development of policy, but how is that to be tested? Surely pursing the information on which the decision has been based, if it is a scientific issue, in the public domain and having it tested in the
490
House in front of Select Committees is the best way to test it. Lord Phillips identifies the importance of having the right structure of government and legislative framework in place.
Even before Lord Phillips's team reported, the new Labour Government had already made significant changes to address the points that I have mentioned. Again, I should like to take the House through the most significant of them. We have set up the Food Standards Agency as an independent agency with consumer protection as its main objective. Its board meetings are held in public. It puts its advice to Ministers in the public domain. We have opened up scientific advisory committees to much greater public scrutiny, including the appointment of committee members specifically representing consumers. A new code of practice for scientific advisory committees is being developed, covering many issues raised by the inquiry. The House will want to know that we will be consulting on that later in the spring.
The chief scientific adviser's new "Guidelines 2000" make it clear that Departments should think ahead, identifying at an early stage the issues where scientific advice is needed. Departments should get a wide range of advice from the best sources, particularly where there is scientific uncertainty. Departments should publish the scientific advice they receive and all the relevant papers.
We have begun the process of modernising Government and of civil service reform. The aim is to improve strategic policy making and to promote a genuinely joined-up approach to problem solving. Departments, including those within the devolved Administrations, have been forging closer links to improve co-operation and consultation on matters of shared interest. For example, formal arrangements, such as the National Zoonoses Group, chaired by the chief medical officer and with members from the Department of Heath, MAFF, the Food Standards Agency and the devolved Administrations, are supported by greater informal contact. The secretariat for the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is now drawn from three departments—MAFF, the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency.
We are proposing to enhance the role of the chief veterinary officer to make it comparable with that of the Government's chief medical officer. In future, the chief veterinary officer will advise the Government as a whole on veterinary matters and may be asked to provide advice for publication.
We are making progress in relation to risk management. All Departments have prepared a risk management framework. Some frameworks—including those of MAFF and the Department of Health—have already been published. The Food Standards Agency has published for consultation draft statements on its approach to risk. The interdepartmental liaison group on risk assessment and its subgroup on risk communication now ensure better sharing of information between Government officials and a more consistent approach to risk across Departments.
We have passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000, creating a statutory right of access to all information held by public bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, unless it is covered—as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out—by certain tightly defined conditions: for example, where disclosure would be illegal or against the public interest.

491
All that is real progress. The inquiry report itself acknowledges that
"the scenery has shifted very considerably from that with which we made ourselves familiar".
Progress has been made, but there is more to do.
Institutional shortcomings cannot be corrected overnight. The whole approach and behaviour of Departments and individuals will need to change to ensure that the lessons identified by the inquiry are properly absorbed and implemented.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman gives a most impressive account of the administrative action that he has taken in his Department and in respect of matters for which he is directly and currently accountable. Does he acknowledge that his tenure—although, on merit, he may well remain in his post for a long time—is limited? What is needed is an assurance that can be guaranteed only by a legal requirement of openness—one that endures and enables members of the public to know about the scientific advice that is being proffered, precisely so as to ensure that the very measures that the right hon. Gentleman has taken, which he has outlined at length, are pursued by his successors.
Mr. Brown: In responding to the Phillips report and in presenting the Government's interim response to the House, I do so for the Government. I am the Minister who co-ordinates the Government's response on the matter; I do not speak only for MAFF. When I make a commitment for MAFF, I am careful to make that clear. What I cannot do is to cover every possible caveat that might arise in the departmental responsibilities of other Ministers, so I am very careful not to do so. The commitment to be open and to publish the advice that is available to Government from the FSA—the agency, too, has a commitment to meet in public and to put its advice to Government into the public domain—is made on behalf of the Government, not just on behalf of MAFF.
Dr. Iddon: Is not one of the problems the fact that we are entering a more technical age? The scientific advice given to Government is becoming ever more technical; there are several examples of that—on genetic modification, stem-cell technology and BSE. Is it not important that, throughout the civil service—especially at the top, where senior civil servants are advising Ministers—we should introduce more scientific literacy? Are senior Ministers taking measures on that matter?
Mr. Brown: Yes. Indeed, on my arrival at MAFF, I was struck by how much science there is in the Ministry already. As my hon. Friend will know from his experience as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, there is a programme of research—especially on TSEs—that I have just enhanced. There is certainly a recognition of the point that he makes.
Dr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Ministry's budget plummeted at the very time it should have been increased so as to investigate the scientific problems to which he referred? The Select Committee
492
found that, at the time of those problems, the MAFF budget showed the greatest percentage decrease of all departmental budgets.
Mr. Brown: We did not decrease expenditure on TSEs. My hon. Friend is right to note that there was a small downturn in the butget as a whole—a matter that I am trying hard to rectify.
To return to the main thrust of my remarks on the Phillips report, the purpose of the interim response is to hold an open, public consultation before finalising the Government's position. That is the right approach. The questions raised by the inquiry report go to the heart of some of the most difficult aspects of public administration. Although it is unusual, I believe that we are right to seek views on all the central issues raised by the inquiry report, before finalising our response.
The following are among the key questions. What else might be done to ensure that Departments maintain an effective research, management and scientific advisory system? How can Government ensure that the full range of scientific opinions can be heard by those developing policy? Do the initiatives by the Food Standards Agency on openness meet the challenges of public confidence in food safety and the specific lessons of BSE? Is there more that the agency might do?
How might Departments best implement the Government's commitment to trusting the public and continue to develop ways of being open and consulting widely while developing policy? Should the Government do more to increase access to information about publicly funded research and development programmes? What more can be done by Government on risk management in science and in food safety?
Are current and proposed arrangements sufficient to ensure that consumer protection legislation can be properly enforced and its effectiveness monitored? Are there any perceived gaps in the powers available to the Government to respond urgently and proportionately to an apparent hazard to human or animal health?
The interim response sets out the Government's thinking on those issues and on each of the 167 recommendations and lessons of the inquiry report. It is right that we should be open about the mistakes of the past, the action that has been taken to put them right, and the areas where there is still room for improvement.
One central question that remains unresolved is the origin of BSE. The Government—in an initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me—have asked Professor Gabriel Horn to lead a group that will pull together all the scientific research on the origins of BSE. We expect Professor Horn to make his report in time for inclusion in the Government's final response.
There has been a significant loss of public confidence in the arrangements is for handling food safety and standards, in large part due to the events surrounding BSE. The report of Lord Phillips identifies institutional and political failure throughout the BSE story. Our task today is to do everything we can to ensure that those failures do not happen again. Since coming to office, the Government have committed themselves to a policy of open and transparent working on issues of food safety. Our aim is to provide consumers and others with timely, accurate and science-based information and advice,

493
enabling people to make informed decisions and choices. To establish credibility, it is necessary to generate trust. Trust can be generated only by openness. Openness requires that, where there is uncertainty, it is recognised and explained.
The BSE inquiry report is an important and thorough piece of work. It documents a national tragedy that has so far claimed the lives of 86 of our fellow citizens and has wreaked havoc on an entire industry. The report sets out what happened, what went right and what went wrong. It sets out lessons for the future. The Government are committed to learning those lessons.
Our interim response is a forward-looking document. It sets out what has been done, what we intend to do, and why. It forms the basis of an important consultation, which I intend to be comprehensive and thorough. I commend both the inquiry report and the Government's interim response to the House.
2.40 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome this opportunity to debate Lord Phillips' s report, and I pay tribute to Lord Phillips, his team and their advisers for the work which they undertook. This is a most important subject, and I welcome much of what the Minister has said about the report and the steps that have been taken to deal with the problem since the report was published and during the past five years by Governments of both parties.
The Phillips report makes it clear that our knowledge of the issue is still far from perfect. Large gaps remain to be filled, one of which, no doubt, will be addressed by the group to which the Minister has referred. As I said in my initial response on the day that the report was published, I accept its main conclusions, and now that I have had a chance to study it in more detail, I confirm my first impression that it is a comprehensive and broadly fair document.
I have never worked at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in any capacity, so I am not able to judge with certainty the accuracy or wisdom of the Phillips report in every detail. My right hon. Friends who are present—some of whom may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—all have direct or first-hand experience of many of the matters examined by Lord Phillips, so I look forward to their comments on some of the report's details. However, on behalf of the Conservative party, I should like to make it clear that we recognise that mistakes were made. I profoundly regret the consequences of those mistakes, and we are truly sorry for the tragic outcomes and terrible suffering of victims of variant CJD and their families.
Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
Our first concern and care must be for the victims and their families, and I fully support the action taken by the Government, some of which was set out in the interim response, published last week. I welcome yesterday's announcement on the interim payments to the families.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about apologising to the victims, but the mother of one of them, Anthony Smith—a neighbour of mine—has written to me, saying:
"If you get the opportunity, I would like you to ask on my behalf why nothing has been heard from the individuals criticised in the report, not even an apology, they appear to be getting away with murder."
It is a very moving letter, and Irene Smith concludes:
"An intelligent, healthy young man has died through ignorance and sometimes it is too painful to bear."
When will the individuals who were criticised apologise publicly?
Mr. Yeo: I naturally sympathise very deeply with the hon. Lady's constituent. The report is extremely circumspect in the criticisms that it makes of individuals. I hope that she has studied the relevant section, because it is clear from Lord Phillips's balanced conclusions that he is rightly reluctant to go too far in blaming any individual.
I would have said this later, but I shall do so now: some of the individuals involved are civil servants who do not have an opportunity to answer for themselves in any case, so pursuing individual criticisms is not a particularly constructive way to address the issue. I am interested in the judgment of the official who explored the possibility of disciplinary action against civil servants. I entirely agree with the Minister that it would be inappropriate for him to become involved in that process in any way, and in his position I certainly would not wish to read the report—
Judy Mallaber rose—
Dr. Gibson rose—
Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
Nevertheless, the fact that disciplinary action against officials has not been considered necessary reflects the balanced way in which Lord Phillips has addressed individual responsibility.
Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
I return to the question of the families. Finding the right help for people with variant CJD is a challenge, and innovative solutions are needed. Time is of the essence, and the Conservative party pledges its full support for the measures that are needed. I believe that we owe it to the victims and their families to ensure, first, that every possible care and assistance is given to them and, secondly, to ensure that the lessons of this episode are thoroughly learned and applied right across government, not only in Britain but in other countries where BSE may now be an increasing problem. Our experience in Britain—an experience which we would all rather not have had—may have given us knowledge and expertise that will be applicable and valuable elsewhere.
Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, it is more important to deal with the issues.

495
Other countries may want to learn from us, and I am sure that the Minister will facilitate that, where possible. History would rightly condemn us as having failed in our duty if the messages that ring loud and clear from the Phillips report were to be ignored. Lord Phillips did recognise, however, that where mistakes were made, the individuals concerned—ranging from civil servants and scientific advisers to Ministers—acted in good faith, and I welcome that recognition.
Anyone who has served in Government will be acutely aware of the danger and possible unfairness of passing judgment with the benefit of hindsight. Neither Ministers nor civil servants enjoy the luxury of spending days, weeks or even months studying the background to decisions that are taken every day of their lives. Those decisions may subsequently come under close scrutiny, but they are often made when other issues appear to be more important or more urgent, not only to Ministers and their advisers but to the outside world. The Phillips report recognises that fact in relation to several points—for example, in paragraph 1292 of volume 1, it does so specifically in respect of the important issue of the communication of risk.
It is also significant that, even with all the resources at the inquiry's disposal and having studied the subject for three years, the inquiry team concluded that the origin of BSE may never be known. Happily, the report was at least able to dispose of some of the theories on the origin of BSE that had been put about—for example, that it resulted from changes in rendering methods.
Let me move on to three of the key messages in the report.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I respect his tone, but I represent one of the families that was devastated. Ministers were mentioned—for example, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not in his place. I do not know whether he has given any indication of why he is absent. Families in my constituency, finding that at one stage his evidence was simply not accepted, feel that he owes them and the House an explanation.
Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman has put his concern on record, and I am sure that it will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The first key message is the need for better communication within Whitehall and the ranks of government. That will not come as a great surprise to anyone with inside knowledge of the workings of government. The second key message is the importance of responding in a timely manner to information that becomes available and to unfolding events; and the third is the overriding requirement for openness and transparency. The Minister referred to the collapse of public confidence in the safety of the food chain, and that cannot be fully restored without such openness. That collapse has exacted a heavy toll on consumers, producers and taxpayers. Special care has to be exercised when assurances about food safety are offered to the public.
Mr. David Drew: As well as trying to give confidence, the Government must get regulation right.
496
Many of us would argue that we do not need more regulation; we need good regulation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we need to find the necessary resources for that? Will he commit his party to finding those resources to ensure that not only BSE but TSEs are properly monitored and evaluated to ensure that such a disaster never happens again?
Mr. Yeo: I certainly agree that we need better rather than more regulation. Like the Minister, I must take care to make commitments only in respect of matters on which I speak. I said recently in the House that the Conservative party is committed to maintaining the budget that the Minister has managed to secure for his Department. That is the nearest that I can get to answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
The report gave a number of examples of the need for better communication in government. The Minister referred to an example that occurred early in the period studied by the report, when officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recognised that BSE might have implications for human health, but that recognition was not immediately conveyed to the Department of Health. Clearly, vigilance is always needed to ensure that poor communication does not produce bad outcomes and that decisions are not made on the basis of inadequate data. That need is not confined to the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Health; it extends, as the Government's interim response acknowledges, to relationships with specialist units, other agencies, advisory committees and, indeed, industry.
Communication must now take account of a new factor—devolution. The interim report, if one reads between the lines, shows that devolution has complicated matters. The existence of four Administrations in different parts of the United Kingdom increases the risk that information available to one may not always be passed to another as quickly as it should be, even though that other Administration may need the information. We had an example of that last year, on a matter concerning an environmental health risk rather than a human health risk, when information available to the Ministry of Agriculture in London about the importation of a GM-contaminated crop was not passed to the Scottish Executive in as timely as a manner as the Executive thought necessary.
The Government have set much store by the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. We fully support the agency and I warmly welcome its efforts to establish itself as an independent, authoritative source of advice for consumers on food safety matters. If the agency succeeds in that roles, consumers, producers and taxpayers stand to benefit.
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman remember a former Prime Minister describing the agency as "PR nonsense"?
Mr. Yeo: I do not remember that. We debated the agency in Standing Committee earlier in this Parliament. It is now up and running and it has our support. I wish it well. Having said all that, it seems doubtful that even if the agency had existed in the period covered by the

497
Phillips inquiry, that fact alone would have prevented, or even significantly alleviated, the difficulties that the inquiry has exposed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
Lord Phillips concluded that in dealing with BSE the Ministry of Agriculture did not lean in favour of agricultural producers to the detriment of consumers. Although the agency's independence is important and valuable, and is potentially central to its future success, I do not think that it would have made a material difference to the matters that we are debating.
Mr. Nick Brown: There are two different points here. The agency's value in circumstances such as these is that it can make a robust, independent assessment of the science and then put the information in the public domain. Realisation of the link between BSE and vCJD emerged between 1984 and 1996, and, if the agency had existed then, that emerging scientific opinion would have been made public and a response would have been required, which did not happen in the events that Phillips described.
Mr. Yeo: I understand the Minister's point. Nevertheless, it is significant that Lord Phillips said in his summary that he did not think the Ministry of Agriculture—
Mr. Brown: Just to clarify, I was agreeing with that point. The hon. Gentleman was making a separate point.
Mr. Yeo: In that case, there is not a great difference between us.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way'?
Mr. Yeo: No, I am sorry; I am anxious to make progress. Many Members who are directly involved in the report want to speak in the debate, and I did not intend to speak for more than 20 minutes.
Good communication is needed no only within Britain but between the Food Standards Agency and agencies in countries from which we import food. There is concern about that.
I turn now to the second message, which concerned the need for a timely response to new information on emerging problems. I do not pretend that that is an easy balance to strike. The public can be alarmed by an over-hasty response to a situation, and the ability of producers to deliver safe, healthy food at prices that suit consumers might even be jeopardised by excessive caution or over-regulation. Nevertheless, the Phillips report suggests that inaction and de lay can pose equal, perhaps even greater, dangers.
The safety of the food chain and the protection of consumers must always be the paraniount concern of the Government. Preserving that safety often requires prompt action. The precautionary principle has an important role to play. Timely action, even if it is embarrassing to the Government, inconvenient to the industry or costly to
498
consumers, often offers better value in every respect in the long run than a delayed response, which can be more drastic, expensive and time consuming.
There are a number of examples demonstrating that need, which I will not go into now because they are in the report for everybody to read. One of the lessons to be learned from those examples is that it is not only the decision but its implementation that has to be timely. Sometimes that is difficult because when a policy maker makes a decision in a structure as complex as government, the speed with which it is implemented is not always visible to the policy maker, or indeed the public, until a retrospective study such as this is undertaken.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: No, I have given way several times. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are referred to in the report, and my giving way will reduce their opportunities to contribute to the debate,
The third and crucial message from the report is the need for greater openness in Government decision making on food safety issues. It goes without saying that statements on such a sensitive subject by Ministers and their advisers must be meticulously accurate. The publication, without any censorship or editing, of advice that Ministers receive from scientific and other bodies can contribute to greater transparency. The need for openness is accompanied by a difficult requirement for Governments to achieve—the need to strike the right note in offering consumers reassurance about food safety. As the Phillips report points out, when the full consequences of BSE began to be understood, the public felt that early statements had been too reassuring. That territory has been explored many times already.
Today's debate is unlikely to be the last on this subject in the House. A great deal more work needs to be done on BSE and CJD if these matters are to be completely understood.
Other concerns are sometimes expressed, such as those about sheep. We do not—and may not—know for many years the full consequences of BSE in Britain, let alone in those countries where the incidence of BSE is increasing and the same steps have not been taken to deal with it. There are alternative theories about the causes of CJD and its link to BSE. The messages of the Phillips report apply not only to BSE and beef, but across the food chain and beyond. As the Minister said, the systemic failures that Lord Phillips identifies will be completely eradicated only by a wholehearted effort on the part of Ministers and civil servants. If they are eradicated, the sad history of BSE in Britain will at least have had one beneficial result. I join the Minister in commending the report to the House.
3 pm
Dr. David Clark: I thank Lord Phillips and his team for their work in producing such a long and useful report. I also thank the Government for establishing the inquiry. It is interesting that it took a new Government to wipe the slate clean and have a proper examination of what went wrong. We suspected that things were going wrong, and Lord Phillips confirms that. The report is workmanlike, thorough and exhaustive, but it contains much new information.

499
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I was invited by Lord Phillips to make a statement to the inquiry, which I was glad to do. For the five years between 1987 and 1992, I was the shadow agriculture spokesman and opposed Conservative Members who were in government and who are here today. We had four major robust debates on the issue, including on some Supply days. I did not apologise for that then, and I do not apologise for it now.
My experiences during that time convinced me that, unless we had a freedom of information Act and legislative rights, the consumer could never be properly protected. That is why, when I was in government, I was so pleased to publish the White Paper on freedom of information. I was also pleased to chair the Cabinet Committee that was involved in setting up the Food Standards Agency. Although those two measures do not mean that problems like BSE or TSE will not arise again, we are now more likely to know what is going on. I do not apologise for that.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the Forbes report. I understand his argument, although I hope that he will not discuss it with his permanent secretary. Many wrongs were done when BSE was emerging, and people may have died as a result. Someone must be responsible. My experience of the civil service—fine as it is—is that there is an ethos of self-protection.
Mr. Nick Brown: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, but I must emphasise that the inquiries by the civil service commissioners go only as far as the five individuals who are still serving civil servants. What he suggests would probably run wider than that.
Dr. Clark: I accept that, but I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the report's introduction. It says:
"At times bureaucratic processes resulted in unacceptable delay in giving effect to policy."
Even after Ministers reached a decision, there was a delay in the bureaucratic process. We need to be certain in public that that process and the people who run it have put those wrongs right.
Lord Phillips' report is a fine analytical work. If I have one criticism it is that he does not pick up on the nuances or the pressure that was placed on politicians who attempted to raise the issue. I shall concentrate on the period between 1987 and 1992. I believe—I think the report supports my view—that the Conservative Government made a series of basic errors of judgment, which helped to exacerbate the problem in a number of key ways. They were not strong enough to break the culture of secrecy in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and their approach was too short term.
Farmers and the general public widely regarded the Ministry as a Ministry for farmers, although that charge would have been denied. I understand that it was the job of Ministers to promote that great industry, but sometimes we have to look beyond the short term. Again, the culture of secrecy, which was probably stronger in the Ministry than in any other Department, exacerbated the problem. As Lord Phillips and many other people said, there was little or inadequate co-ordination between the Ministry and the Department of Health.
500
I remember participating in many debates and being howled down by Conservative Members who said, "Do you want to ruin the beef industry in this country?" The answer was no, but had we acted earlier, we could have saved a greater proportion of our beef industry and perhaps eased the conditions that the farming industry is experiencing today.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I well remember my right hon. Friend's excellent work in those years. In the debates, he, I and many other hon. Members raised the possibility that BSE was transmissible to humans. That was dismissed out of hand by the then Government and we were accused of scaremongering whenever we mentioned it. Does he recall those days? Does he think that the Government's response was appropriate?
Dr. Clark: I remember those days clearly. Right from the word go, the Southwood report said that, although it was only a remote possibility, there was nevertheless a possibility that BSE could be transmissible to human beings. I accept that it was a remote possibility, but Ministers robustly defended the status quo and said that there was little threat to human beings. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and I exchanged words on that matter in several debates.
Crucially, the public were given the impression that it was safe to eat beef. Tragically, we now know that the Southwood report was slightly wrong. The possibility may have been remote in statistical terms, but for those families who have suffered the consequences of BSE, it is a real experience. We all regret every death, and if a death is unnecessary we must ask why it happened.
Mr. David Taylor: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful analysis of the culture of previous Conservative Governments. Deregulation was a strong aspect of that culture, and it made it extremely difficult for public protection measures to be appropriately enforced. Does he share my dismay that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are still talking about having a bonfire of public health regulations and enforcement measures?
Dr. Clark: At that time, there was a culture of deregulation. However, when it comes to public health, we should be aiming for better regulations and not necessarily deregulation. We must also bear in mind the fact that, in that period, many public services were being reduced. If my memory serves me right, the state veterinary service was reduced by 43 per cent. in those years. That meant that we did not have the resources in the veterinary or public health services of central Government—closre after closure of veterinary laboratories had taken place—to tackle the problem.
Thus the problem came down to money. Quotes to support that view are available. Professor Southwood said that the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
"expressed the hope … that any recommendations we would make would not lead to an increase in public expenditure".
That is staggering, but it makes my point in one sentence. That is one reason why we got into such difficulties.

501
Delays were another issue. The Phillips report makes the point that the then Government hushed up for six months the fact that a case of BSE had been confirmed in 1986. That is in the report for everyone to see.
The Southwood report was published in June—Conservatives Members are shaking their heads, but these are the facts—but we had to wait eight months before the report was actually published. Professor Southwood suggests that vital research may have been held up in that period.
Mr. John MacGregor: I would prefer to concentrate my remarks in my speech, but I must correct the right hon. Gentleman's final point. The interim Southwood report was published in June and we acted on it immediately. The full Southwood report was given to Ministers in February 1989 and we published that, along with our reactions and the Government response, within three weeks.
Dr. Clark: There was delay after delay after delay. That is one of the points that I want to make. For example, it took 18 months after a case of BSE was confirmed before the Government made it a otifiable disease. It took 20 months to introduce a compulsory slaughter and compensation scheme and, even then, it was only at 50 per cent. We know—or at least we have our suspicions because I talked to farmers at that time—that farmers who were hard pressed and who were in doubt would take their beast to the market and into the abattoir because they could not afford to lose a £350 animal. The then Government eventually accepted our point of view, but there had been a delay. It took them two and a half years to announce the ban on cattle offal for human consumption, and it took them a further 20 months after making BSE a notifiable disease to pay farmers 100 per cent. compensation. That should have been done earlier.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I remember the right hon. Gentleman making many of these points in the House. The offal ban was first introduced in 1991, but it took another five years for a complete ban to come into force, during which time massive amounts of specified bovine offal and meat, and bonemeal were exported. That fact is now coming home to roost, because there are now cases of BSE in countries overseas.
Dr. Clark: I remember that very well and, over the past two or three days I have been able to read the debates that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The hon. Gentleman made such points then. I hope that I have made my general point that the previous Government were guilty of many delays. We do not know what the cost of them has been.
We issued warnings to the previous Government. In May 1990, we called for a ban on the feeding of cattle offal to pigs and chickens, but that call was not taken up until very much later. We called for the cull of the offspring of BSE-infected cattle but again, that was not implemented until years later. We tried to stop the use of cattle and sheep offal in pet food but, again, it was years later before any action was implemented. In 1990, we called for the institution of a tagging system for cattle, but we had to wait until this Government established a plant
502
in Workington in 1998 before we got any progress. There was a delay of eight years, in which the Conservative party in government did absolutely nothing.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which measures recommended by advisers the then Government declined to implement? I played no part at that time, but even if previous Ministers did not get everything right, was it not the case that they systematically took steps to implement in full the advice that they received and, in certain cases, embellished and added to the proposals?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the subject and is very knowledgeable, and I do not want to disappoint him. However, I shall provide him with an example after I have made my next point. We also called for the widening of the scientific evidence made available to the Government.
Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that one of the recommendations of the Tyrrell committee—a committee of scientists—was that there should be a
"Survey of brains of cattle routinely sent for slaughter to monitor incidence of unrecognised infection."
The fact that that was never implemented by the Government of the day, even though their experts recommended that it should have been, is important. We know that the then Government did not implement the recommendation because it might have shown that some infected cattle were getting into the food chain. I understand the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it was a high-risk strategy, but I believe that the consumer had the right to know. There should have been a belt-and-braces approach to these issues, but the previous Government consistently refused to act on that recommendation.
Judy Mallaber: From his experience, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even after the link between BSE and variant CJD was confirmed, many Tory Back Benchers refused to acknowledge and accept that link? Does he agree that the pressure from some of those ill-informed Conservative Members made it more difficult for Conservative Ministers to accept the link and the risk to human health?
Dr. Clark: There was certainly a strong feeling and culture among Conservative Members that they had to do everything to protect the farming industry. I understand that, but I suggested at the time—and I suggest it again now—that they were not serving their farming friends very well. Indeed, their short-term approach to the problem made life in the long term more difficult for farmers.
Mr. John Burnett: I should disclose that I was a cattle farmer and breeder in the period to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I hope that he and other Members will acknowledge that, had there been proper labelling of animal feed products and had farmers had real knowledge of the possible dangers, virtually no farmer would ever have fed meat and bonemeal to cattle.
Dr. Clark: I agree absolutely. By the nature of their occupation, farmers have to think long term; otherwise, they have no future.

503
I want to stress a further important point, which relates to the way in which the Government of the day restricted their scientific advice. Any scientist who was not seen as part of the scientific establishment was excluded. I want to highlight in particular the poignant case of Dr. Harash Narang, the expert in the northern region. He was employed by the Government as the chief scientist for the Public Health Laboratory Service dealing with CJD, the human equivalent of BSE. Dr. Narang had developed a system, through electronic microscopy, to identify CJD in human beings—I concede that it was a post-mortem test—and he believed that he could use the same technique with cattle. At the time, it was taking eight or nine weeks to get the results of any tests, which meant delay with what was done with the animal meanwhile, and the animal was taken out of the human food chain.
I was staggered to find that Dr. Narang, having started to work on these matters in his own time, was sacked by the Conservative Government. To this day I find that incomprehensible. I do not know whether Dr. Narang was a fine scientist—I cannot judge; it was for his peers to judge—but I know that he had collaborated with a Nobel peace prize winner, Dr. Carleton Gajdusek, and had published papers with him. That was his standing. However, he was precluded from helping us to solve the problem. Fortunately, a private benefactor in the form of Ken Bell, a former butcher, came along and allowed the doctor to continue his work.
I am not saying whether Dr. Narang was right or wrong; it is not for me to judge. However, it is possible that his sacking cost lives, because he was permanently excluded from work in this area. At the time, it seemed that there was only a "remote possibility" of a link of transmissible disease from animals to humans. However, Dr. Narang was right and the Government's scientific advisers were wrong. I hope that we have learned—this does not stem from the Phillips report—that when dealing with science of this nature, which is at the bounds of knowledge, members of the scientific establishment do not have the sole solution.
Perhaps I have detained the House for too long, but I feel strongly about the issue. It flavoured my political thinking and I was glad to put right some of the wrongs, as I saw them, in government. I tried to ensure that, if we ever faced such a challenge again, we would have a better equipped group of scientific advisers, a better equipped bureaucratic framework, and Ministers able to think more strategically and more long term. Not enough long-term thinking was done by the previous Government when they were trying to cope with BSE.
3.23 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: There are many things that I would like to say about the matter. I shall not be able to deal with them all in a short debate, and those to which I refer will have to be dealt with briefly.
I begin by expressing my deep sympathy for the victims of nvCJD and their relatives. The Phillips report brought out the fact that everyone involved was naturally concerned to take the right decisions, and quickly. Most of us are parents. All of us have the greatest concern for protecting human life and health. In my experience,
504
everyone involved with BSE pursued all the issues most conscientiously. That is fully recognised in the Phillips report.
I deeply regret that the outcome has been such human tragedy. However, as is recognised in the Phillips report, we were dealing with what turned out to be an unprecedented situation. The report describes BSE as a novel and alarming zoonosis. It was certainly one that was not in the experience of anyone who was trying to identify it at the time. Professor Sir Richard Southwood and other scientists—the best international experts that we could find to advise us on the issue—described us as dealing at the frontiers of science.
The chief veterinary officer once told me—I think that it is in the Phillips report—that 40 new animal diseases a year are identified. We never know which one will be the most difficult. As the Minister will know, there is a disease in the pig industry that is known as PDNS. It probably has a more damaging impact than classical swine fever. It has emerged only in the past two years, and we still do not know what is causing it. After two years, the Minister cannot take action on it because he does not know what action to take. That was the problem that we faced with BSE.
In two instances, I shall be critical of the Phillips report. However, I put on re cord immediately my congratulations to Lord Phillips on what I regard as an exhaustively thorough and balanced analysis. There will always be lessons to be learned from something so major and so difficult to come to grips with. I compliment the Phillips team on the way in which it has drawn the lessons together. I compliment the Government also on the thoroughness of the interim response.
I can speak only for the two years when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was in the early stages of BSE. Most of the events discussed in the Phillips report—especially the implementation of decisions that we took—came after my time. I did not follow events quite s o closely thereafter, and it would not be right for me to comment on them.
I have already referred to uncertainty. I was always conscious, and certainly at the early stages—I shall make a direct response to the criticisms of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—that we were taking decisions without being entirely sure of the scientific assessment s underlying them. When I took the initial decisions about the banning of meat and bonemeal, I was conscious that we were only 80 per cent. sure that it was a cause of BSE There was always the risk of being completely wrong and being challenged on judicial review or in the courts by the industry or anyone else for taking actions that were r of based on any proper scientific assessment.
My first answer to the right hon. Member for South Shields on the meat and bonemeal ban is that I received the final paper from the chief veterinary officer, in which he analysed what he thought was the cause of BSE— namely, meat and bonemeal—only in May 1988. That was when I had the evidence on which to act. Within three weeks, or less, I had 'tanned it. That was a quick response.
As for the slaughter and compensation proposal, I agree with the criticism in the report that there was delay. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have been in contact with the Department of Health earlier about that proposal. However, the chief medical officer

505
took the view that that Department, once consulted, did not have the necessary expertise to consider the proposal. Therefore, the Southwood committee was set up. Within days of receiving the interim Southwood report about the slaughter and compensation scheme, I went to the Treasury. Within a week, I secured Treasury agreement. An announcement was made almost immediately thereafter. That was a rapid response
The right hon. Member for South Shields is completely wrong about the final Southwood report. I received that report in early February, and published it as quickly as I could. I had been to Cabinet and obtained the Government's decisions on it as well. I not only published the report immediately, but announced the Government's actions. In each instance the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Dr. David Clark: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the comments of Professor Southwood, when he says:
"We recommended that such an experiment"—
transmission from cow to calf—
be started almost as soon as we met, but it did not get under way until the report was published 9 months later."—[Official Report, 21 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 78.]
Mr. MacGregor: That is not a reference to the interim report, because we came out with all of that early on. I cannot remember the position on the particular issues that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, but I was anxious throughout to act immediately on the Southwood recommendations, and I did so.
Uncertainty is an important issue.
Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No. If I give way a great deal, I shall go on for too long. There are still a number of issues within the report with which I want to deal.
Paragraph 1151 of the Phillips report states:
"When our Inquiry began, most members of the public remained under the impression that BSE was scraple in cattle and that the reason why cattle food had become infectious was that renderers had altered their methods of production to the detriment of safety standards."
Most of us in the House took that view; it was certainly my view. Therefore paragraph 166 in the Phillips report surprised me. It states:
"The epidemic of BSE may have started with a single diseased cow. Why should that cow have developed BSE? It is possible that the disease developed spontaneously as a consequence of a genetic mutation."
The report states that that probably occurred in the early 1970s. It continues:
"There are other possibilities. No one will ever know."
I took the received view—the best view of everyone at the time—that the cause was the change in the rendering of meat and bonemeal in the early 1980s and that sheep scrapie was coming through the process. That turned out to be partly right, as meat and bonemeal were the cause of the spread. However, according to Phillips, the rendering had nothing to do with it. I remember that the right hon. Member for South Shields raised that process with me frequently, but in fact rendering turned out to be a false cause.
506
I was surprised even more by the fact that scrapie had nothing to do with the cause. That is significant, as all the received scientific assessment at the time suggested that BSE came from scrapie, which led to the view that the risk to human health was remote. The reason for that was simple: scrapie had been around for 200 years, and had not had any consequences for human health.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall do so just once.
Mr. Clarke: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not worry too much about time, because we respect his courage in coming to the House and applying himself to the matter.
May I briefly put to him a comment in the Phillips report and invite his response? The report states:
"Mr Andrews … should have raised with Mr MacGregor the need to have an answer to this question."
That is, the question why action should be taken on baby food and not other food. The report continues:
"Mr. MacGregor himself should have seen that the question … was pursued."
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to respond to that criticism?
Mr. MacGregor: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall respond to both criticisms at the right place in my speech.
I shall finish my point about uncertainty, which is terribly important. The scrapie analysis led to the scientific assessment, to which nearly everyone subscribed at the time, that the risk to human health was, as the Southwood report states, "most unlikely and remote". However, Southwood and others emphasised that if those conclusions were wrong, the consequences would be extremely serious. I never sought to disguise that. I frequently made that point wherever I went, as well as the point about the remoteness of the risk and the relationship to scrapie.
It is not only a question of scientists getting some things right and some things wrong in their early assessment. Indeed, the Phillips report does not criticise them at all for that. The Phillips report itself may be wrong about the cause; it admits that it simply does not know. I was surprised by the certainty with which it discussed the mutation theory—it may be wrong. It is essential that we continue to assess the causes, which is why the Government are right to ask Professor Horn to review the origins of BSE. That is one of the most important actions that they can take because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, the ramifications may go wider than BSE itself.
Mr. Nick Brown indicated assent.
Mr. MacGregor: I note that the Minister is nodding.
That possibility demonstrates the difficulties of grappling with the issue at the time.
Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not.

507
I want to concentrate on the lessons. First, I must briefly address criticisms of individuals, the vast majority of which were addressed to civil servants, who do not have the opportunity to reply. In my experience, they were extremely dedicated in dealing, in many cases, with extraordinarily difficult issues on top of an already heavy work load. Of course, mistakes were made. However, far more often, Phillips concludes that the right and, critically, key decisions were, in most cases, taken speedily in frequently difficult circumstances, and in the context of available knowledge. Indeed, there are many commendations to that effect in the report.
To deal with the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for South Shields, Phillips makes it clear that there were no cover-ups or deceptions. The right hon. Gentleman's point about MAFF being close to the farming industry is rejected absolutely in the report. The accusation that the 50 per cent. compensation led to an increase in the number of people trying to evade controls is also rejected. All of those accusations were analysed carefully in the report, and were rejected.
One reason—I put this criticism mildly—why there has been a focus on individuals is that individual criticisms were listed in an appendix, on which there was a media focus. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right and rather kind in his original statement to the House, when he indicated that there was not a similar appendix drawing out all the commendations and praiseworthy comments in the report about individuals. If that had been done, the report might have been rather more balanced.
I obviously do not want to make comments about too many civil servants, but my own permanent secretary, Sir Derek Andrews, was meticulous and conscientious in dealing with the matter. I felt particularly for the chief veterinary officer, Keith Meldrum, and Dr. Pickles from the Department of Health, who received individual criticisms. However, if one considers the overall balance of the report, they come out extremely well. I should especially like to talk about Keith Meldrum, whom the report describes as
"a particularly dedicated and hard-working civil servant".
I want to put that on the record, as it is only fair to that individual.
Judy Mallaber rose—
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have a lot to say.
I also want to emphasise that the three vital measures that we took during my time at MAFF were warmly praised in the Phillips report; it is important that that be understood. First, Mr. Wilesmith, who undertook the initial analysis of the disease, was given great praise for his speedy identification of meat and bonemeal as a cause of the spread of the disease. There was wide praise for the fact that we banned meat and bonemeal very soon after—I believe that the report refers to our swift and appropriate response—which directly contradicts what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said. As the report makes clear, that action reduced the rate of infection by 80 per cent. overnight.
508
Equally, the slaughter and compensation scheme and the specified bovine offal ban were described as vital measures for the protection of human health. Indeed, to respond to the point of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, the report describes one of those measures as far-seeing and of great importance.
Having set out that context, I shall deal briefly with the two individual criticisms of me. The first—to which I think the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston was referring—was that, after the final Southwood report, I did not ask for a review of the report's suggestion, namely, that if SBO materials were not to be used in baby food, why not ban their use in all food? But that is precisely what I did. It is on record that that was one of the first questions that I asked internally in the Ministry. As I considered the issue of baby food, that question was increasingly on my mind, and that of many people. That matter was raised in the Ministry.
The proof of that is the action I took on the Southwood report to ban SBOs in all food. I acted in response to my first question, so the Phillips report's criticism of me is rather strange. The reason that criticism is in the report—which is important for the context of future inquiries—is that many of us who went to the public hearings for the Phillips report, and had questions put to us by the report's counsel, frequently had to point out that not everything that takes place in Departments is written down. We had the strong impression that a paper trail alone was being pursued and that discussions that were not recorded in detail were thought not to have taken place.
In fact, I did ask the question about SBOs, which is why I came to my decision, and why I am surprised by the criticism in the report. There is therefore a problem in relation to the inquiries undertaken by the Phillips team. The report rightly refers to the fact that the civil service is a Rolls-Royce machine, but criticises it for taking too long to reach conclusions on issues and on its tendency to draft and redraft guidelines. That is a fair criticism. Of course, if people are asked why they did not do something 10 years after the event because no record exists that they asked a certain question, or if they are asked why a matter was not raised at a ministerial meeting because the minutes of that meeting did not refer to it, that will lead to a situation in which everything will be written down and ultra-caution will be practised to protect the civil servants.
I know for a fact—and I am sure that the Minister would agree—that in many of our meetings, the private secretary, rushed off his or her feet, takes a quick note of the conclusions and that is it. Somehow or other, the Phillips inquiry gained the impression that, unless it was all written down, something never happened. There is a risk of banking up double safety mechanisms in the civil service, which could lead to even greater delays.
The report makes another criticism of me, which I must read out briefly. With reference to the SBO ban, it states:
"Mr MacGregor is bo he commended for introducing a ban which was to prove such a vital element in guarding against the risk that BSE posed to humans. However, he should not have agreed to presentation which played down the importance of the ban as a protection for human health."
That is the only other criticism, which suggests that I should have added another sentence or two to the parliamentary answer that announced the SBO ban. I have wrestled with the matter, which is one of judgment. At

509
the time, I was anxious about exceeding Professor Southwood's recommendations. I was worried that the next day's headlines would say "Minister and advisers disagree", when I wanted them to refer instead to the action that we were taking as an ultra-safe precaution for human health. Indeed, Professor Southwood described the precaution as being belt and braces in the extreme. In order to avoid the wrong interpretation and to show that the measure had developed from the Southwood report, I added some important additional points. They are itemised in the Phillips report, so I shall not repeat them now. That was my focus, but I am criticised for not adding a sentence saying that risk still remained to human health.
The answer to that criticism is twofold. First, there had been widespread debate in the media about the issue in the weeks leading up to my decision. The way in which it was received by the press shows that the action that I was taking in the background was fully understood. Secondly, I was assured by all the scientists that the action that I was taking was not scientifically necessary. I therefore made the point that if there was a risk and we turned out to be wrong, I would already have taken the action to deal with it. That is the way in which I presented the matter, and I leave that to the House to consider. I thought that I had presented it reasonably well.
Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the flavour of those two points justifies sears that the practice of defensive medicine might be growing? Just as it might be difficult to pursue specialties in medicine because of the risk of being sued thereafter, Ministers might be inhibited, if we persist in the constant it habit of having to find an audit trail, in making decisions, is because they must act in an over-defensive way in order to justify them subsequently.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall return to that interesting point during my consideration of the report's lessons. I apologise to the House for taking so long to make my speech, but as I was criticised in the report, I think it reasonable for me to respond, even if very briefly.
I am in broad agreement with the Phillips report's conclusions on the areas about which I have relevant knowledge, and with those in the Government's response.
Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry; I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.
I want to concentrate on some particular lessons, having made the point that I am broadly in agreement with them. I entirely agree about openness. I always tried to release information and reports as quickly as I could, especially with regard to communication of risk I reject the idea that I knowingly suppressed any information, and I am sure that those of my right hon. friends who have had similar responsibilities will say exactly the same.
Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I want to make progress, as I know that so many hon. Members want to speak.
I say to the Minister that Government must not let the desire for wider consultation or the need for further review delay action if they conclude that a particular
510
proposal or policy decision must be implemented quickly. If one consults widely, there is a risk that that may happen. I had to take two or three of my decisions very quickly.
The question of openness and sedation is difficult—the Minister is also likely to find it problematic—because of the media reaction. We were anxious to convey the precise scientific views that were taken about the risk. However, we always had to be careful about misleading headlines, so conveying such views was always a difficult matter of presentation. My other criticism of the report is that it does not give attention to the response and attitude of the media. That was hardly mentioned, but a whole chapter on it would have been helpful. I suspect that the Government's response does not deal with the importance of the media either. It contains a brief reference to training civil servants in respect of dealing with the media, but the matter is wider than that.
Although openness is entirely right, it will not solve all the problems when some sections of the media are interested merely in a sensational headline or a good scare story. I suspect that even the Food Standards Agency and its director will find that that is the case from time to time. I have always felt that one of the key qualifications for the director, apart from being a scientist, is skill in dealing with the media.
I wholly support the need for a much more informed public debate on risk assessment and management. I have often tried to get such debate going, not only as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but as Secretary of State for Transport. Initiating such debate is not, however, an easy thing to do. Such matters are rather boring and an accident or food scare is much more interesting than proper risk assessment. I fully support every effort to get proper risk assessment and management more into the public debate.
I strongly support the codification of good practice in respect of the scientific committees. The Neill committee on standards in public life, of which I am a member, has been codifying good practice in public life for the past few years. The lessons of the past and up-to-date thinking mean that codification is worth while.
I have a couple of points that relate to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). It is important sometimes to pay our advisers, who have a big work load, as is mentioned in the report. There is also a risk that they will be unwilling to serve if every piece of advice that they give is subjected to the sort of treatment given by the Phillips report. I suspect that some members of the Southwood committee feel aggrieved at the way in which their actions have been analysed. In future, advisers might need reassurance on indemnity. As my hon. Friend suggested, that is important in this age of blame culture and ambulance chasing.
The report refers also to training scientists in the use of plain language, which is important, but above all, media training is highly desirable. I often felt that the precision to which scientists are used can be at odds with some journalists' desire to get a good headline.
I turn finally to two other important matters. On Government action and legislation, I was surprised at how little reference was made to judicial review in the main body of the report. It was mentioned once or twice, but Ministers at the time were conscious of its dangers. I once worked in a Department that was subjected to judicial

511
review in respect of a particular case, so I know about all the risks of legal action that would have arisen if we had taken decisions that were not properly based.
There is a very interesting question about the matter that has not been fully explored. Paragraph 1329 of the report states that powers
"should not be restricted merely because it cannot be established as a reasonable probability, as opposed to a mere possibility … that the disease is transmissible."
That is where judicial review comes in and, from about paragraph 1303 onwards, the report contains an interesting analysis in that regard, although I shall not bore the House by reading it out. The message that I took was that it is always important to get the balance right. One has to continue to give the opportunity for outside interests to challenge through judicial review a Minister's action and the basis for it. On the other hand, if one is to proceed as Phillips recommends when the issue at stake and the scientific evidence are very unclear, the implications of judicial review must be thought through. That has not yet been done properly, so I ask the Minister to think a bit more about that issue.
I could say so much more, but I should like finally to deal with tests. We were greatly handicapped in the early years by the lack of a reliable test. We had no test to detect animal protein in compound feed, let alone ruminant protein. That was extremely difficult in respect of the bonemeal ban. I would have loved to have a test, and the enzyme linked immuno sorbent assay—or ELISA—test was eventually developed. Even more important, however, was the detection of BSE. Decisions taken by the European Union now depend greatly on having a reliable test for BSE. My understanding is that there are still defects in the existing post mortem tests, in terms both of their complete reliability and of the speed with which they can be carried out. We must ask in how much better a position we would be if a test in live animals could be developed. Indeed, the Government make that point on page 40 of their response. I attach enormous importance to the development of a reliable test, as it would make it so much easier to deal with the disease. I am glad that the Government are putting so much effort into that.
I apologise for having spoken so long. My conclusion is that we did seek the best scientific advice that we could and we always acted on it. We never did less and occasionally did more. We also took what Phillips described as far-sighted measures. However, BSE was an unprecedented phenomenon from which lessons are bound to have been learned. The Phillips report gives the right framework and, in my view, the Government are right to follow it up rigorously.
3.49 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) will understand if I do not comment in detail on what he said because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), my interest in BSE developed when I was the Opposition agriculture spokesman, a post which I held until the 1997 election. As long as I live, I will remember the day when British Ministers came to the
512
House of Commons to announce the likely link between BSE and CJD. It is a measure of how serious the issue was that, in the morning, the Government sent the chief medical officer, the permanent secretary at the Agriculture Ministry, and the Cabinet Secretary to brief me and my right hon. Friend Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was then the shadow health spokesman, on the seriousness of the statement that the Government were to make that afternoon.
A great deal has happened since that day, and I congratulate the Government on setting up the Phillips inquiry. There is no doubt that that inquiry was necessary and there is a great deal to be learned from this episode in British history. I should like to start by quoting from the report:
"At the heart of the BSE story are questions of how to handle hazard—a known hazard to cattle and an unknown hazard to humans. The government took measures to address both hazards. They were sensible mea cures, but they were not always timely nor adequately implemented and enforced."
That key conclusion of the Phillips committee explains why disease in cattle was allowed to develop on such a massive scale.
We know the proportions of the BSE crisis. The disease was first recognised in November 1986, and since then we have had nearly 180,000 cases of BSE on more than 35,000 farms in Great Britain. Since the statement by the then Government in March 1996, measures have been taken which have cost the British taxpayer £4 billion.
We can now quantify the cost of BSE in terms of the animal population, but we are not in a position to judge how big a tragedy it will be for the human population. There have been a number of articles in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal during the past year on new variant CJD. There have been 94 probable or definite cases to date, of which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, 86 have died. That is not a large number, certainly not compared with the 17,000 cases of AIDS, but the numbers are rising and no one can say how many cases will develop in the years that lie ahead.
The impact of BSE has not been confined to the UK. The EU budget now faces serious problems because of the collapse in the beef price, and two German Ministers were forced to resign only recently on the issue.
What went wrong? I want to specify four failings in particular. First, there was delay. Measures to protect human and animal health were not put in place as quickly as they should have been. BSE was first identified in November 1986, but animals showing symptoms of the disease were still allowed to go into human food until August 1988.
When it was realised that cattle and sheep should not eat cattle and sheep, the Government gave the industry five weeks' grace to clear their stocks of feed, and we know that many in the industry took much longer than that so that stocks were used long after the ban came into force.
It was not until November 1989 that the brain and spinal cord of all cattle were banned from human food in England and Wales, and January 1990 in Scotland. The mechanical recovery of meat, which can result in spinal cord entering human food, was not banned until 1995.
Secondly, there was under-enforcement. Measures to protect human and animal health were appallingly badly enforced in the feedmills and slaughterhouses. Our cattle

513
were still eating contaminated feed many years after it was banned in 1988, and BSE has been confirmed in an animal born as late as 1996. More than 42,000 cases of BSE have been confirmed in cattle born after the feed ban. With regard to human food, nearly half the slaughterhouses visited in September 1995 were found to be in breach of BSE controls designed to keep infected offal out of our food—five years after the offal ban was put in place.
Thirdly, there were failures of con communication. Far too often in the BSE story, Departments failed to talk to one another. That is borne out by the Phillips report. Lack of communication between MAFF and the Department of Health resulted, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk confirmed to his credit in the delay in introducing the slaughter and compensation policy and in addressing the risk posed by bovine products in human medicines.
The experts at the neuropathogehesis unit, based in Edinburgh, could have told the Government years before that it was possible that a small amount of infective material could transmit the disease.
Fourthly, the public were given the false impression that BSE posed no risk. So keen were the Government to try to prevent food scares that the public were not properly informed of the risks presented by BSE. Lord Phillips says:
"officials and Ministers followed an approach whose object was sedation".
When the news broke in March 1996 about the link with variant CJD, therefore,
"the public felt they had been betrayed".
There was then a massive crisis in public confidence, not only in the safety of beef but in the trustworthiness of official advice, a point which my right hon. Friend made recently. We are still suffering from that and it will take a long time to regain the British people's confidence in ministerial statements.
Disastrously, people in the food industry were listening to the Government's campaign of reassurance. The BSE report concludes that the lack of diligence in keeping our food safe was attributable in part to the Government's efforts to ensure that news about BSE did not give rise to public concern.
I want to touch on the role of scientists. I was an animal scientist myself before I entered the House. The BSE inquiry report makes many valuable points. In particular, Lord Phillips points out:
"BSE did not emerge at a propitious time so far as research was concerned. In 1985 Ministers had accepted a recommendation from the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food that expenditure on research into animal diseases was disproportionate and should be reduced by 20 per cent. Implementation of this policy was resulting in staffing cuts at research establishments."
One area that is not expanded on in the report is the ability of scientists to publish their findings. The Minister may be aware that there are scientists who worked on behalf of the Government on BSE matters who are quite clear that they were prevented from making their findings public. Dr. Valerie Ellis, assistant general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the trade union representing many Government scientists, states:
"Anecdotally, Members of the CVLA"—
514
the central veterinary laboratory agency—
"did raise the issue of concern over transmission of BSE between species and were told 'not to be daft'."
One example put to the BSE inquiry of where publication was prevented was a paper on the possibility of a link between BSE and feline spongiform encephalopathy. That is an area that needs to be considered further, which I hope will happen in the fullness of time and before the full report is published.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today that he has appointed a distinguished scientist to consider the science of BSE. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, we do not know for sure how BSE first developed, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
I welcome the fact that the Government moved so quickly to set up the independent Food Standards Agency and my right hon. Friend's important restatement of the fact that all the advice and scientific information in this area is now in the public domain. There is no question but that that is a quantum change. I also welcome the new care arrangements for new variant CJD patients and the proposed improvements in the machinery of government.
What will happen if a new disease appears in future? What key lessons have been learned from the BSE crisis? The first is that we should apply the precautionary principle. When human health is involved, it is always wise in the first instance to err on the side of caution, or—dare I say it?—perhaps on the side of overkill. Secondly, we should identify all possible routes of transmission to other animals and humans, and impose all measures necessary to reduce the risk of transmission to as low a level as possible. We should ensure that all measures to protect human and animal health are properly enforced. That is vital, and arguably the most important lesson to learn from the crisis. All of us, including Conservative Members, know that those measures had not been effectively enforced for years.
Judy Mallaber: From my right hon. Friend's experience, would he agree that some of these lessons might not have been learned if the inquiry had not been established? Will he speculate on whether, if the Conservatives had unfortunately got into government at the last election, they would have set up such an inquiry? I would like to ask the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) that question, as he made complimentary remarks about many aspects of the report, although he included some caveats. Does my right hon. Friend think that the inquiry and report would have happened if there had not been a change of Government? What would have been the outcome of not holding the Phillips inquiry?
Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We would almost certainly not have had this report: the issue would certainly not have been examined with such thoroughness. When the Opposition reply to the debate, it would be helpful if they made it clear that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government coming to power after the next election, they would carry forward this work and implement all the measures that my right hon. Friend has pledged to put in place.
The other lesson to learn from this debacle is that we should be open, even when the information available is inconclusive. The public can cope with the truth, and they

515
must be trusted with the truth. What they cannot cope with is the realisation that they are not being told the whole truth.
There were failings in the handling of the BSE crisis. The harsh reality is that animals and, almost certainly, some people who should have been protected from BSE have been exposed to it. We are seeing the end of the disease in cattle, but we still have no idea of the scale of the human disaster resulting from BSE. We can only hope that the number of new cases of variant CJD in humans will begin to fall.
4.2 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I agree with many of the points made by Labour Members, and I understand the justification offered by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I extend the sympathies of Liberal Democrat Members to all who have been tragically affected by BSE. I do not want to dwell on the mistakes of the past, because I would much rather examine ways of working together to ensure that a national tragedy such as BSE is never allowed to happen again. With hindsight, many people who have examined this issue over a long period and many of the public now accept that there were difficulties, but they want leadership from the Government to ensure that the changes required do take place.
The Government have produced their interim response to the inquiry, which I welcome. I acknowledge the work of Lord Phillips and his team in producing such a wide-ranging, far-reaching and exhaustive report. I hope that we shall return to it in the future, because its recommendations extend far beyond the BSE crisis.
The report has not been received without criticism, however, and interestingly the Government chose to make an initial response prior to this debate, which in turn has shifted the emphasis and diminished the opportunity to discuss the merits and demerits of the report. I, and perhaps other hon. Members, have been contacted by some of those involved in the inquiry who have voiced a number of concerns, two of which deserve a mention.
First, there is concern that the inquiry went about verifying certain prejudged conclusions rather than seeking answers from scratch. That is a serious allegation, but I am minded to discount it, given the meticulous attention to fairness that the language of the report denotes, and the fact that it is broadly accepted by both sides of the House.
The second charge gives greater cause for concern, and has been touched on by other hon. Members. The report, without warning, in effect altered the status of civil servants in such a way that personal responsibility was accorded to civil servants who had previously been afforded the privilege of being covered by ministerial responsibility. That the actions of civil servants were scrutinised seems right in the circumstances, but given the very public nature of the inquiry's scrutiny, more attention should have been paid to protecting some individuals, especially those who faced extremely serious allegations that were published on the internet but later not upheld. Although I welcome the fact that the Phillips inquiry left no stone unturned, we must always be mindful of protecting our public servants from unjustified media or public attention.
516
The key to the future is the way in which the Government have responded to the report's findings. I want to examine what I believe are the three crucial areas in need of improvement that were highlighted by the report: first, the way the Government deal with risk; secondly, the need for Governments to operate more openly both between Departments and in their interaction with the public; and, thirdly, the way the Government operate internally in their practices and protocol.
The main element of the Government's response to the BSE inquiry is the establishment of the Food Standards Agency: a body that we have supported and which we want to succeed. 0n the face of it, the Food Standards Agency should be able to address the immediate problems raised by the Phillips inquiry. It is independent, so it should be able to command greater credibility in an age of scepticism; it conducts its business in public; and it puts all its research contracts out to tender to attract the best scientific minds available to inform it.
The Food Standards Agency cannot be the solution to all the problems highlighted by the inquiry, however. Give or take a few other smaller measures, the general impression is that the Government think they have done enough, but questions remain, the most important of which is whether the FSA is getting it right. Is it properly perceived as independent of Government, or would it be better if it reported direct to a Committee of the House rather than to a Government Department? Is it considering all the best scientific opinion? Perhaps more importantly, are its pronouncements heard and trusted by the general public?
To my mind, we ire at an early stage and we cannot answer those questions is for certain. The FSA is very young and its mettle is being tested by the new European BSE situation. Even if we accept that the FSA is doing all it was intended to do, the job, as laid out by Phillips, is by no means done. First, much more was brought out by the report. For example, are the Government making adequate contingency plans while awaiting the advice of their expert advisers—now the FSA? That fundamental question must be addressed, and I shall return to it later.
A yet more serious problem is raised by the "FSA solves all" approach. The findings of the BSE report have implications for the Government which range far beyond just food safety. The report specifically mentions medicines, but as yet the Government have done little to address that issue. More importantly, its comments on the treatment of risk she should have caused the Government to re-examine their practices across all policy areas. On health, what is the situation in respect of single-use instruments? What about sterilisation procedures and blood transfusions throughout the United Kingdom? What about the labelling of medication?
A clear issue on which Lord Phillip's findings should have informed policy is the Government's treatment of the risks associated with mobile phones and telecommunications base stations. That issue will never be addressed by the FSA, but it leads me clearly to the first of my three concerns: risk.
How to treat risks to the public is a dilemma for any Government. It was clearly a dilemma for the previous Conservative Administration, and it remains a dilemma for this Government. There is no point in causing unnecessary scares, but the Government have a

517
fundamental role in protecting public health. That will often require action even before positive proof is available.
Since the period that Lord Philips investigated, a number of risks have been identified by many individuals and groups. Genetically modified foods and the MMR vaccine have been mentioned. I am pleased to note the presence of the Minister for Public Health, who will doubtless comment on that. The most recent risk—the new outbreak of BSE on the continent—has been dealt with by the Food Standards Agency, rather well in my view. It might well be posited, however, that the lack of public panic had more to do with the fact that the media did not have enough sensational revelations from journalists with which to plaster their pages than—necessarily—with the fact that the FSA's openness has reassured the public. There has, however, been no cover-up, deliberate or otherwise, which is commendable.
Another risk that has come to the fore recently—I have already mentioned this—is posed by mobile telephones. In this respect, the situation is less clear. It is plain that some lessons from Phillips have been learned: the Government admitted that they did not know what the risks were, and recruited experts to investigate. When the experts concluded that they, too did not know what the risks were, the Government published the report and put the science behind it in the public domain by publishing a leaflet.
That was very commendable. So far, so good. The Government congratulate themselves on that good work—but the most important aspect highlighted by the BSE report is the need to act even when the risk is only potential. We are talking about the so-called precautionary principle.
Although the Stewart report recommended the taking of precautions in relation to mobile telephone base station sites many months ago, we still hear that case upon case of applications for base stations near schools, and in dense residential areas, are accepted every day. The public are naturally very concerned, and we are seeing a growing number of petitions and demonstrations. What is the point of all this communication of risk, if precautions are not being taken until the risk has been spread?
Mr. William Thompson: According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, should not mobile phones be banned outright? The danger is likely to lie not in the mast but in the phone itself.
Mr. Breed: I agree. I think that the science should be in the public domain, and that we should adopt the precautionary principle—especially when it involves the recommendations of an independent report, which in this case was instigated by the Government.
I realise that the Minister may not wish to comment on those specific points, but I feel that comments on the broader issues relating to the handling of risk are important, and they arise from the Phillips report.
Closer, perhaps, to the hearts of many who take part in agriculture debates is the classical swine fever outbreak, which is fresh in many of our memories. It raises another aspect of the Government's attitude to risk. In their interim response, the Government responded to Lord Phillips's view that insufficient resources were available for research and veterinary services when the problem of
518
BSE arose. They have concluded, however, that the current emergency funds are sufficient. Why, then, was I contacted during the swine fever crisis—I think other Members were as well—by so many farmers who were worried about unreasonable delays in getting test results back, apparently because Government scientists were overwhelmed with work?
Have we really done enough to cover such emergencies? That is a question that the Government must answer. The rundown in Government research and testing facilities over many years may well have precipitated some of the problems revealed by the Phillips report. Are those facilities now being given the resources that they require?
There is another crucial question. Has enough been done to tackle concerns about openness and communication within Government, and between various Government Departments and offices? A response was published before today's debate, on the basis of which I think we should ask a few more questions.
I have registered my concerns about excessive reliance on the Food Standards Agency to deliver all the changes required by Phillips. More noticeable by its absence from the Government's interim response, however, is any reference to a serious look at the need to improve intragovernmental communication and openness, and to tackle the cultural problems identified in the report.
We are told in the Government's response that they have established a number of concordats between various Departments and offices to enshrine the principles of better communication; but where precisely is the communication link that was so sorely missing during the period covered by the report—the link between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I am not at all convinced that enough communication channels exist as yet. Perhaps some are in the process of being set up—the Minister may be able to enlighten us a little later—but it sometimes seems that rather than redressing the lack of communication between those two Departments, the FSA has been passed the buck. It will not do the job; it must be done by Government Departments acting together.
I welcome some measures announced in the interim response. A cross-departmental committee on zoonoses has been set up, and the secretariat of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee now involves members of both Departments. Those are positive developments—but what of the other lesson that must be learned if the report is to make a real difference? I refer to the fact that, too often, important documents sat on desks rather than being attended to with the urgency that is due to them.
All too often, it was left to those outside Government to identify the areas in which discussion was lacking. The report tells us that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was instrumental in raising the problem of head-splitting. I think we know what that means: I suspect that my hon. Friend was talking in animal terms. The issue had been the subject of an internal memo that had apparently been ignored.
Research commissioned by Pedigree Foods originally identified what should be classed as specified bovine offals. Pedigree Foods took the initiative to answer questions raised by the Government's own inquiries. The report specifically notes, moreover, that the measures to

519
ensure careful implementation of the specified bovine offals policy was driven not by Government but by the media, stating:
"The media played a valuable role … which had a beneficial influence on Government policy".
It is rather nice to be able to praise the media, at least in this instance.
The Government clearly do not talk among themselves enough. I, for one, feel sceptical about the possibility that more concordats and rules will substantially change the culture in Whitehall that has dominated us for so many years. In one circumstance after another, I still find examples of exactly the culture that the BSE report urges against, that of secrecy and closeness—be it refusing to answer straightforward questions, or refusing to meet people informally rather than undertaking formal and expensive studies and consultation. Consultations are a safe way of dealing with issues as far as the Government are concerned, but in many cases more openness would limit the need for such cumbersome exercises.
That brings me to the last issue I want to raise: the operation of government. The BSE inquiry raised many examples of bureaucracy that would be laughable if their consequences had not been so tragic. One example is the urgent note to abattoirs—a key document—explaining the importance of enforcing regulations, which took more than a year to draft and redraft. Examples of delay—Labour Members have made clear the existence of such examples—have been a significant factor in this whole affair. We need to know that such bureaucratic idiocy has ceased, and that action will be taken much more promptly.

The inquiry made it clear that the Government should not use openness and consultation as an excuse for dither and delay: they must be ready to act, and to act quickly, when there is any possible risk. Yet even in the Government's response, we see further evidence of the operational logjamming in Whitehall. One of the inquiry's crucial findings was that the Government did not have sufficient understanding of their own operation to determine who should be informed of, and who should act on, the new risks posed by BSE. The report recommends that
"lead responsibility should be clearly established for co-ordinating scientific response to a new disease or new outbreak of disease".
I believe that the Government needed to leap into action on this matter, but what was their response? They used the words "aspirational terms". The Government are looking into assessing who should be consulted and who has lead responsibility.
Only recently, the rural White Paper gave a clear example of how action can be put to one side and preference given to constant drafting and redrafting. While t's were being crossed and i's dotted, the countryside continued to decline. The Government must learn these lessons, put them into action, and monitor their own performance.
In short, we cannot say that the Phillips report is done and dusted. Its recommendations and suggestions need to be regularly referred to, and perhaps a formal annual review should be established to ensure that the recommendations accepted by the Government have been transferred into Government performance. It is all too easy to slip back into the old way of doing things. We
520
must guard against that, and ensure that the sea changes recommended by the report are implemented, maintained and, where necessary, reinforced. That is the most important message of this sorry saga.
It is tempting to revisit the past regularly to remind ourselves of the horrors of what went on, but we have to look forward. We must do so with confidence that the report's recommendations will truly transform the performance of government.
It is true that the Food Standards Agency has been a step forward, and it is currently cutting its teeth on the very complex issues of European BSE. However, the Government need to learn more of the lessons from the report—about their internal workings, about the need for communication and openness across the board, and about the need for action, even in uncertainty.
For example, the European BSE issue raises certain questions. Are contingency plans being made in case the FSA urges a ban? Have the industry and the scientists, including those outside the existing SEAC and FSA structures, been consulted, and has contact with them been maintained? Who will be in charge of taking forward any policy? Is the Department of Trade and Industry on standby? Are MAFF and the Department of Health in agreement with whatever contingency plans have been drawn up?
Beyond that, what more is planned? Are the Government working on establishing who is responsible now, before their consultation on this interim response comes in? Is contingency planning on the basis of the outcome of the Krebs trials under way?
It is undeniable that BSE was a national tragedy. The Government are leaning the lessons, and that is vital. This is not a party political issue, because it is about government and how it works, whichever party is in office and whatever hazards come to light during a Government's time in office.
The BSE inquiry was thorough—I think that all hon. Members agree on that. The Government must now be as thorough in their response, both in the immediate time frame, and in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches from 4.30 pm until 6.30 pm?
4.24 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I think that the debate has been extremely helpful. I want to thank the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) for his reply to me, and I will of course study his response.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed again today superb competence and great sensitivity in dealing with what is an extremely serious subject. It is one of the most serious matters that I have been involved with since I came to the House. The House will know that my interest in the matter in my constituency of Coatbridge and Chryston arose as a result of the very tragic case of Donna Maria McGivern. She was a teenager who died after an illness of two and half years, in circumstances that we can only imagine.

521
My aim today—I hope that I say this with a sense of humility—is to encourage the House to think about how families coped with the sadness that they felt as they met the hour-by-hour challenges that arose in a situation that none of them could have predicted. The families have been helped very considerably by the Irwin Mitchell firm of solicitors, and in particular by Mr. David Body. It is gratifying to note that many of the families' criticisms and proposals have been taken on board in the Phillips report and in the Government's interim response to it.
At the close of the families' evidence in phase 1 of the inquiry, Lord Phillips told them:
"This is very much your inquiry. The pressure that led to it has largely come from you. You are entitled to a thorough inquiry, and we are doing our best to make sure that this inquiry is as thorough as it could possibly be."
The House is seeking to respond to that approach today.
The questions for us are, "What really did happen? Can we really get to the root of these dreadful problems? In the light of the clear evidence of incompetence, what do we do to respond to the needs of the se who have been so deeply affected?" My constituents seek the truth: they want neither a witch hunt nor a white wash. They will have been helped by our consideration of the Phillips report today.
I initially raised some of the issues under discussion today in a debate in December 1999 I subsequently led a delegation to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, and I thank her for the interest that she showed even at that early stage in the development of the Government's response.
I want also to put on record my thanks to the Government for their speedy response when it came to compensation. They also acted speedily to consider a strategy for a care package when similar sad events arise, and to ensure the co-ordination that they clearly regard as necessary, both within and between Government Departments, and with the various outside agencies involved. Those bodies include the surveillance units, and it is the unit in Edinburgh that is charged with the responsibility of dealing with these matters in my area. I welcome the fact that dialogue is on-going, and that consultation with families continues, especially on the issue of compensation.
I turn now to the tone of the report. I want to look at the parts played by MAFF, the Department of Health and by those at every level of Government who had responsibilities in this matter. Bearing in mind what the families involved are seeking to find out, I invite hon. Members to consider how well those responsibilities were discharged.
Inevitably, the question arises whether BSE might be transmissible to human beings. At what stage did that emerge as a clear possibility, and was the response to it adequate? The inquiry made some very severe criticisms. It concluded that, in the first half of 1987, there was a policy that one senior veterinary investigation officer described as
"a total suppression of all information on the subject".
We have heard today about the events of 1988, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister addressed some of his remarks. Even after March 1987, it was demonstrated that there was a strategy of restricting the dissemination of information about BSE. Clearly that was, to say the least, somewhat unhelpful, both then and now.
522
The inquiry concluded that the principal reason for this was concern about the possible effect on exports, and the political implications should news get out that a possible TSE in cattle had been discovered in Britain.
Many more people should have been involved in taking that decision, if it was the right decision to take. I do not believe that that was the case. The problem, on all the evidence, jumped from species to species—from cattle to feline consumption, and then to the human chain. That must have taken a lot of time. The response, in the view of the families concerned, was not one that they would have regarded to be as urgent and imperative as the facts then known invited it to be.
That leads me to question the role of Ministers as the evidence has unfolded; the role of civil servants, although I take on board the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister; and even whether the Food Standards Agency—whose establishment I welcome—is as all-embracing as it might be, given what I believe could be its input in resolving some of the difficulties.
We cannot ignore the evidence that was before the committee, to which I shall refer as briefly as possible. It is important to have on the record some of the conclusions, and without wearying the House I will do that:
"The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. It believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote. The Government were preoccupied with preventing an alarmist over-reaction to BSE because it believed that the risk was remote. It is now clear that this campaign of reassurance was a mistake …
A vital industry has been dealt a body blow, inflicting misery on tens of thousands for whom livestock farming is their way of life …
BSE developed into an epidemic as a consequence of an intensive farming practice—the recycling of animal protein in ruminant feed. This practice, unchallenged over decades, was a recipe for disaster …
At times officials showed a lack of vigour in considering how policy should be turned into practice to the detriment of the efficacy of the measures taken."
Those are serious indictments. Although my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly advised us to consider the report as a whole, it is important that we address ourselves to those criticisms.
Earlier I expressed surprise at the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am disappointed that he is not here to deal with some of the criticisms that were made of him, by contrast with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. The Phillips report was particularly critical of the failure of the Government to review and evaluate the Southwood report, saying that there was at MAFF, as at the Department of Health, a team failure to subject the Southwood report to a proper review in order to evaluate whether the unexplained differences in approach to the food risk posed by BSE had explanations that appeared to be sound.
Some families recall the evidence that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe gave during phase 2. He was critical of the inquiry generally, and commented that the committee had become lost in papers and failed to understand how Government worked. He was particularly robust in asserting that the Southwood report had been subjected to a vigorous review in his Department. The Committee expressly rejected his evidence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told the committee that in his Department there had been copious review, correspondence and discussion about the report, which would have included the questions raised—

523
"although he could not now remember the details of these."
He also referred to an "amazing quantity of exchanges" between his Department and that of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. The Committee said:
"We did not accept this evidence"
and went on to say:
"If offal is not safe for babies, why is it safe for adults?"
The committee went on to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have ensured that his Department reviewed the report and provided an answer if there was one. He did not.
I regret very much having to repeat those criticisms, but I would have thought that the families and the House expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be here to reply to these serious comments. Whatever further debate we have, we will not necessarily get all the replies that people would expect from Ministers involved over a lengthy period. We look forward to some responses which hitherto have been missing.
My right hon. Friend the Minister correctly referred to the role of the civil service and told us about the inquiry by Sheila Forbes. I take on board my right hon. Friend's sensitivity, but many of the families have conveyed the view that, given that there is no suggestion of disciplinary action, there may be a danger that what is perceived as the ethos of the civil service—that much goes on behind closed doors without people hearing much about it—is being endorsed by that approach.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk gave his explanation of some events. He will forgive me for concluding that, frankly, even in that situation, perhaps some of the civil servants were protecting their own backs rather than Ministers'. That might be regarded as extreme, but families do take that view and we have to find a way of reassuring them about the role of civil servants and the need for openness and transparency in these matters.
I must now refer to the role of the FSA. It was a first-class decision to establish such an agency, which is long overdue. I welcomed it at the time and I think that it is a great credit to the Government that the decision was taken. However, I must express some of the reservations that some of the families have, although those are expressed in generally supportive comments about the work that the FSA is seeking to do. The families believe that their contribution will be acknowledged by Sir John Krebs and his staff.
Nevertheless, the families also believe it is symptomatic of attitudes that are prevalent in the civil service that while numbers of groups were invited by the FSA to be stakeholders in the BSE controls review—for example, the National Farmers Union, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Small Abattoirs Federation, the Department of Health and MAFF—no invitation was extended to the Human BSE Foundation. Those involved had to speak from the floor if they chanced to be at a meeting. Nobody wanted that approach, probably not even the organisation itself. I believe that it can be corrected.
I thank the House for giving me a hearing and I hope that I have not inadequately expressed the view, the concerns and—dare I say it?—the anger of my constituents. If, in the light of the report, the Government's response and my right hon. Friend the Minister's excellent handling of the
524
situation, we get to a stage where lessons are learned and we can prevent such trauma from reoccurring, the deaths of my constituent Donna Maria McGivern and many others will not have been in vain.
4.40 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to associate themselves with the early comments of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and those of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the anguish of the families. It is also common ground between us that Lord Phillips has produced an exemplary and exhaustive report. He has approached the subject with great clarity. Later I want to concentrate on an aspect on which further work remains to be done.
Although I was not criticised by Lord Phillips, it is right to try to draw some lessons from my experience and that wonderful thing, hindsight. I shall use the short time available to do that. I want to build on the comments of my right hon. Friernd the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about judicial review.
If we are to learn the lessons of the report, we must put ourselves in the position of a future Minister who tries to act differently, as it suggests. Such a Minister faces the continuing problem of the interpretation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom compared with many other nations. We do not have administrative law, and Ministers have to behave in a specific manner when making decisions.
Let us take the case of feeding meat protein to herbivores. The report states that the activity is not new, but dates back to the 1920s. Our legal system means that if, in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, a Minister had said, "That is unusual; I'm not happy about feeding meat protein to herbivores. I think it would be better to ban it", he would have been subject to judicial review and unable to effect his intention. That is also true today. Many might say that the same anxieties are provoked by feeding fishmeal to herbivores. However, I know that no Government or Minister could ban that practice in the absence of anything other than a general belief that such an activity was not proper.
If we try to examine the issues in the way that Lord Phillips suggests, we must consider carefully the implications of our system of judicial review. That runs counter to another aspect of the report that we want to support: the ability of people beyond the confines of Whitehall and Westminster to intervene and say that actions are unfair ant unacceptable. It is a pride of our nation, stemming from 1688, that we have a system in which the rule of law, rules, regulations and attitudes apply as much to Ministers as to anyone else. I do not suggest that we are considering an easy problem or that I have a solution However, it deserves serious consideration.
Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: I prefer not to give way because I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.
The second issue that requires careful consideration is the relationship between openness and science. When I became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I said that I would put in the public arena all the advice that I

525
received. The present Minister will agree that there was no occasion when I failed to do that. He referred to such advice this afternoon. We are as one; that issue is not controversial.
However, the way in which one deals with risk is controversial. The Food Standards Agency recently had to consider the risks of imported French meat. The new, independent agency—its independe rice is uncontested—made a clear decision, which it stated. I accept the Minister's explanation of the two aspects that were tackled when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk asked him about that. However, it cannot be said that the decision received universal approbation.
One of the difficulties of assessing risk is that it is not possible, in any circumstances, to say that there is no risk. All that one can do is say that the risk is small, remote or unlikely at one end of the spectrum, and likely at the other. Even if that is repeated constantly, there are two reactions, which are not necessarily rational. The first is, "If the risk is as small as that, why are you bothering about it?" The second is, "If you can't tell me there's no risk, there must be a big risk." The difficulty lies in communication.
There is a problem when scientists say that a risk is remote. Actions must be proportionate to that. That is the nature of English law and Scots law; in that context, we are at one. I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston to stem cells—an issue on which he and I agree—to show the difficulty of assessing what scientists tell us. We both have several deep doubts about what they have said.
There have been concerns about genetically modified organisms. One has only to read the, statements made by the Prime Minister on that issue, explaining the safety of GMOs, to see that he has based them on advice that he has properly taken from scientists. The Minister himself will know how difficult it is to frame legislation in a manner that not only protects the environment—I think that we share a similar view on tile dangers posed by GMOs to the environment—but avids the possibility of being caught in a judicial review that would overturn all ability to protect people in those circumstances. It is therefore a matter not only of the law but of how one can communicate the scientific view, when that view very firmly asserts that there is little risk or that the risk is very remote.
Although I think that various possible cases were examined, I do not think that the Phillips report takes the view that there have been restrictions on scientists. Simply as a matter of fact, I must say that whenever I found someone who was speaking differently from my advisers, I went to great trouble to investigate that person and his comments and whether I should give them credence.
Although I think that the events occurred before my time, I certainly looked into and revlewed carefully some of the matters that were criticised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). As he will know, in such circumstances, there can be no question of Ministers sacking anyone. However, that was not the issue. The issue was to determine whether those who spoke differently had something to contribute. In all
526
circumstances, Ministers—like all hon. Members, I should hope—have to gather as many independent examples as possible, investigate the facts and heed them.
Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No. I am really going to try to complete what I have to say in my 15 minutes, and I have only about five minutes left.
I have now to address the issue of the media—not to attack them, but for exemplary purposes. It would be very difficult to do what Phillips hopes that we shall do in future without taking that issue very seriously. I refer the Minister to one of my decisions which resulted in my closing a relatively large number of abattoirs. The media were not pressing me to close more abattoirs, but attacking me every time that I closed one. That situation continued, and even extended to enormous inaccuracies.
I remember taking one journalist to task. I told him that I had closed the abattoirs because I thought they had not been protecting the public health. I asked him why he did not telephone me before making such statements so that I could provide the facts. I said that I was quite open about providing the facts, which are all in the public domain. He said, "If I telephoned you I would not have a story, and I have to pay the school fees." Although that is an extreme example, it is a serious one. We have to recognise that moods in the media change enormously. Even if one is seeking to be an honourable and decent reporter of what is being said, one gets caught up in the particular mood.
I used abattoirs as an example because, in that case, the mood turned out to be entirely wrong. So tough was it, however, that I found it necessary to see every hon. Member—some were Labour Members—in whose constituency an abattoir was being closed, to explain in detail why we felt that closure was necessary. The attack from outside was that the closures were either a wicked Brussels invention, which is of course the most convenient explanation for the media, or that I had a thing about small family abattoirs, as some of them were. If the point on mood is true in that situation, it must be true also in the situations that we are discussing.
I come now to a difficult issue. It is easy to pick out examples of a person's comments that turn out to be right. It is also perfectly right for hon. Members to stand up and say, "I remind the Minister that, in 1988, I said so and so", and those comments turned out to be right. However, although I do not think it is necessary, I could read out a series of comments that people made in 1988, 1992 and 1994 that turned out to be entirely wrong.
There was, for example, great pressure on me to ban all milk produced in the United Kingdom because it might be an agent. The scientists told me, with the same firmness that they used when telling me that BSE transmission was a remote possibility, that transmission by milk was a remote possibility. The difficulty is that I happened to be right in one case, but—clearly, as events turned out—wrong in the other. The advice, however, was the same. In both cases, my determination to accept that advice and to reach to the edges in the direction of safety was precisely the same.
As I am in the fortunate position of not having been criticised, I am not trying to defend myself. I am merely saying that that is my experience of doing the job.

527
A serious issue for future Ministers is to determine how, in the context of Phillips's concerns, we can square a circle that is difficult enough to deal with at the time.
In my last minute, I should like to say something about civil servants. I think that the Minister has taken a brave and proper stand in his decision neither to read nor to comment on what is a civil service matter. I come from a business background. I was a Minister for 16 years. One of the most difficult things about being a Minister is that one has no personnel responsibility. One could not run a business on that basis. I merely say that that is a right thing. It is a necessary protection for the public from politicking in the civil service. The time to stand up for principle is when it is most difficult. The Minister has done that, and I commend him for it.
4.55 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I listened carefully to the comments of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I remember his years as the Minister in charge of agriculture from 1988 to 1992. I would have preferred it if he had addressed most of his remarks to his period in office rather than commenting on judicial review and criticising the media. Those were smokescreens rather than proper accountability for his period in government and the decisions taken at that time.
I have taken a strong interest in BSE since my election as a Member of Parliament. I am a scientist and the constituency that I represent is rural. West Wales has a great deal of livestock agriculture. The first speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made in the House in 1988 was an Adjournment debate, in which he drew attention to the problem of BSE. I remember having a conversation with him about it the following week. In the months and years that followed, as the epidemic unrolled across Britain, I took part in debates here, watched what was happening in the media and was in touch with farmers and farming unions in my constituency, and my views are based on that first-hand experience.
Much of my experience is reflected in the Phillips report, although my view is more polarised and less generous than that of Lord Phillips. I want to refer to two comments made by farmers. I am surprised that, in the two or three hours of the debate so far, little direct reference has been made to farmers, their unions and their role in the crisis. A large part of the secrecy and the hiding of the crisis came from individual farmers and the farming unions, the Conservative constituency associations, MAFF and so on.
In 1989, a farmer came to see me at one of my surgeries to reveal something connected with the problem of BSE. He said that a cow on his smallholding that had contracted BSE had had a calf just a month or two before. He was surprised that, although the cow was destroyed and he had received compensation, the calf was allowed to survive and develop. As the cow must have been developing BSE during most of its pregnancy, he thought that there was a danger of maternal transmission.
I wrote to MAFF and tabled a series of parliamentary questions, because it struck me forcefully that the precautionary principle was not operating. It was
528
self-evident common sense to the farmer and to me that it would safeguard human health to destroy the calf as well as the cow. When I told that story a few months later to a prominent member of my local farming union at the united counties show in Carmarthen, he said that there was no risk whatever of transmission. He told me that a cow on his farm had had BSE. The price of calves was good in the late 1980s. He knew that there was a valuable calf inside the cow, so he arranged for a caesarean section so that the calf could survive. He was so convinced that there was no risk that he arranged for a vet to come out and conduct an operation.
Sadly, that was the climate that prevailed among farmers, the farmers unions and, indeed, in MAFF. They believed that although an animal was severely diseased, there was zero risk of maternal transmission—there was no problem. The then Government completely denied that there could be any relationship between BSE and a risk to human health, even though, as we heard earlier, the Southwood report conceded in 1990 that there was a remote risk of such transmission.
In May 1990, the House debated the subject. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was then the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) opened the debate for the Labour Opposition. When I re-read my own contribution to the debate, I found that my Labour colleagues and I reflected the views of the Labour party at the time. We made it clear that the transmission of BSE to humans could never be ruled out. Indeed, by 1990, there was evidence of transmission to other species—zoo animals, cats and so on. Prudence or the precautionary principle should have told us of the risk.
Hansard shows that, during that debate, Labour Members—especially my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—were howled down by Conservative Back Benchers, who accused us throughout of scaremongering. Unfortunately, however, what we feared came to pass. We were constantly told that there was no evidence of BSE being transmitted to humans, but the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. There is always that danger.
I am delighted that, during the first few years of a Labour Government, we established the Food Standards Agency; it is important that, instead of being part of MAFF—with its conflict of interest between consumer and producer—the agency is independent of Government and reports to the Department of Health. The producer thus has no direct involvement.
Several hon. Members have cited the comments in the Phillips report about the then Government's policy when BSE became a problem. Their fears of public over-reaction resulted in the presentation of policy by Ministers "whose object was sedation". They tried to pretend that there was no problem and to cover up its very existence.
Reference has been made to civil servants and former Ministers. I regret that no action is to be taken against any individual. A front-page report in today's Western Mail quotes a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger). It says:
"Terry Harvey, from Saundersfoot in West Wales, whose 25-year-old daughter Marianne died of the disease in August 1999, said the money brought little comfort.

529
'I would be prepared to forgo every penny in return for an opportunity to question some of the ministers who were in charge during the BSE outbreak. For someone to admit responsibility for our children's deaths is more important than any amount of money.'"
Parents and relatives of CJD victims share that view, as do the general public. An enormous blunder was committed; it spanned about 15 years and no one has owned up to their errors, nor explained why what was originally a problem has become a catastrophe.
I hope that, under the new Government and certainly with the Minister in charge, all scientific committees, not just those in MAFF, become much more open and transparent. They should conduct as many of their meetings as they can in public, so that they can be publicly reported. Not only their advice but their meetings should be open to the press and public.
I welcome consumer representation, but it needs to go wider. Environmental groups, especially those dealing with GM foods and anything that has a consequence for the environment, should be as broadly based as possible. We need to incorporate dissenting voices much more. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred to the experience of Dr. Harash Narang in the BSE story. Other people, such as Richard Lacey and Stephen Dealer, expressed dissenting opinions, but their opinions were not generally taken into account.
When in opposition in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Labour party pressed for much greater effort to be put into BSE research and into developing a diagnostic test, first in dead animals and then in live ones. That research work was not done on a sufficient scale in the 1990s, when £1 million, £2 million or £3 million was involved, and the epidemic is now costing us at least £1 billion a year. That early work should have been done. There are tests now, but they are not very reliable. In a sense, we have lost five or 10 years simply by not making such research a priority in the 1990s.
The costs of BSE are incalculable. So far, there have been 94 victims of CJD in Britain, but we do not know whether the eventual total will be hundreds or thousands. We have heard about the problems with blood transfusion and the fact that it is impossible to sterilise surgical instruments if they are infected with prions because they are so robust and heat resistant. The cost to the NHS will, therefore, be substantial.
There are now incidents of BSE in France, Germany, Ireland and Portugal. Instead of being disappointed and sorry for their problems, some Conservative Back Benchers and farmers almost revel in the fact that BSE is now found in other countries. In fact, Britain exported BSE to Europe. It can all be traced back to animal feed that was recklessly exported. Feed contaminated with meat and bonemeal was banned in Britain in 1988, but it was sent abroad.
Could BSE happen again? Could we suffer from something like it again? Of course there is a danger that such diseases could evolve, but I hope that the Government now have in place suitable mechanisms—through greater transparency and openness, but particularly through the Food Standards Agency—to ensure that it cannot happen again.
5.8 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for his measured and careful approach to this extremely difficult and distressing situation. I congratulate him on his forward-looking approach and the fact that he is determined to build on the lessons referred to in the Phillips report.
I should like to associate myself with the apologies and regrets expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Conservative spokesman on agriculture. The tragic fact is that, no matter what we say this afternoon, nothing can bring back the loved ones of the families that have been so tragically affected by the whole episode of BSE. The very best that we can do is to take the lessons that have to be learned from the circumstances and the experiences that we have all had. In that respect, I wish to express my regrets for the agriculture industry, whose once prosperous and thriving cattle sector is a shadow of its former self, although obviously it is rebuilding itself.
The report is admirable and expresses the issues very clearly in a readable and comprehensible manner. It makes every possible effort to be fair and even-handed. In such a debate, it is to be expected that hon. Members will be tempted to quote selectively from the report. However, Lord Phillips laid it on the line that the Government of the time were
"anxious to act in the best interests of human and animal health."
He said:
"The Government did not lie to the public about BSE … it believed that the risk was remote."
He also said that
"allegations of a government 'cover-up' of the risks posed by BSE … cannot be substantiated."
That is clear and unequivocal.
Equally, however, things went wrong, and obviously there are lessons to be learned. I shall concentrate on only two, which I have briefly discussed, in passing, with the Minister. The first lesson relates to openness and media reaction. In his opening remarks, the Minister described that as a notoriously difficult area. There were several food scares in the late 1980s and the 1990s. We had the salmonella in eggs episode; questions were asked about soft cheeses; there was a problem with apple juice—and, I seem to recall, with carrots; I cannot now remember what it was, but I recall headlines of the "killer carrots" variety.
There is undoubtedly a genuine dilemma, which the Minister has already faced and will continue to face, concerning how best to explain what are, in all fairness, half-completed scientific findings, which may or may not be confirmed, without there being a huge, terrified and unjustified media outcry. Some may say that a media outcry does not matter. Some of my right hon. Friends have expressed their fear that a judicial review may arise from an unjustified media outcry. The public can make up their own mind if they have access to the correct facts, but "killer carrots" was not a factual description of the problem with that particular food.
During my time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was only 14 months, there was a change in the scientific advice that we were given based on the finding of infectivity in the distal ileum of calves. That episode is described in great detail on pages 137 and

531
138 of volume 1 of the report. It was also exhaustively examined in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the then Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, and I gave to the inquiry. There is no doubt that we strained every nerve in an attempt to give information as completely, accurately and speedily as possible. Within five days of receiving the advice from SEAC, we had produced a complete press report and informed the EU and, it goes without saying, Parliament. The report commended us for that.
However, I recall—this is a point for the Minister—that having given a lengthy, detailed press conference and issued a press release, there was a curious silence from the sound and television media. Fearing that I had not been as open as possible, I went to Millbank and said, "Does anyone want to interview me about an increase of infectivity in the distal ileum of calves?" Although I was trying to be open with the media, they were not too interested. It is possible that I might have been accused of trying to cover something up merely because an issue, which was important and serious and which represented a new development, seemed, on the face of it, to be boring and technical. It is easier for the media to say, "Killer carrot". It is not always as easy as it seems to be as open as one should be. I know that the Minister realises that, and I am trying to share my experience of that problem with the House.
The issue of accountability and responsibility causes me some anxiety on the Minister's behalf. On page 30 of volume 1, the report refers to the division of responsibility for enforcing regulations between central and local government. It says:
"Although central government was largely responsible for the Regulations made about BSE, it usually fell to local government to enforce them."
Local authorities were required to attend the inquiry and gave evidence collectively, which was fine. I am not in the least worried about taking responsibility for the safe practices of slaughterhouses. Although other people—the chairmen of environmental health committees in local government—had been elected to take responsibility for the conditions in them, I accept that the Minister stands at the end of the line. However, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) said, there was the issue of the division of responsibility.
To address that problem, we took the controversial decision of creating the Meat Hygiene Service, which took on responsibility for many matters. The report deals with that in the section on lessons to be learned. We believed that we had gone some way to solving the problems. I think that the Minister may face similar difficulties because responsibilities have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The report says:
"When BSE emerged, the Territories"—
its word—
"were in general content to follow the lead of MAFF and"
the Department of Health. It went on:
"Under devolution, a similar attitude cannot be relied upon."
I know that the Minister has the situation in hand, but it is important for people to march together when there is an overarching issue of public health. I am sure that he
532
will continue to maintain that approach. The matter is delicate. New elected and devolved institutions are naturally wary of any encroachment of what they see as their territory, although public health is clearly relevant across the country.
I want again to express my heartfelt regret and sorrow for those families who have been so grievously affected by the episode. In explaining how it was to be a Minister in government at that time, when less scientific knowledge was available, the report helps to explain today's circumstances. However, we cannot expect the families to see it that way—how can they? I believe that the Minister's positive approach and the support that has been expressed on both sides of the House may help individuals and families to cope with their grief.
5.20 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
All hon. Members hold advice surgeries and I first became involved with the issue of vCJD after I held a surgery in my constituency. In a cold hall in the village of Eaglesham one of my surgeries turned out be anything but routine. A gentleman, whom I did not know, appeared to explain what had happened to his family. I have the permission of that gentleman, Mr. Tibbert, to mention the fact that, tragically, be lost his wife, Margaret, when she was 29. Listening to the experience of the Tibbert family and learning that a very young son had lost his mother to the disease ignited my interest in the issue.
Since the terrible but important circumstances in which I met Mr. Tibbert, I have come to learn that a second family in my constituency—they do not desire any publicity—have lost young son to this terrible disease. I have also come to I know them and discussed their tragic experiences with them.
I have explained the background to my keen interest in the subject and, as the first paragraph of the introduction of the Phillips report makes clear, the issue is not only a tragedy for the families involved, but it has become a national tragedy. In my conversations with those who have become interested in the subject because of their personal experiences or through their interest in food safety, food hygiene and public safety, I have learned that there is a general welcome for the way in which the Government have dealt with the tragedy and continue to seek to deal with it.
The Government commissioned the Phillips report, responded positively to it and have made a genuine attempt to provide a care package to support the families affected. I do not think that that is a party political point, because I believe that a care package was not in place in the past because this was a newly discovered disease that Governments were not accustomed to dealing with. The package has now been put in place, but I dare say that, if the Conservative party were in power, it would also be undertaking to provide a care package, to consult the families of the victims and to consider proposals for compensation.
As with the compensation for far east prisoners of war, it is not the money but recognition of the problems that is important. Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to make strenuous efforts to continue to consult the families of the victims, because they believe that to be crucially important.

533
All hon. Members who have met the families of the victims would have several outstanding questions. Some of those questions about who knew what and when and about where we apportion the primary responsibility may never be answered. I suspect only the consciences and memories of the Ministers and civil servants who were directly involved and who attended the meetings will be the true testimony to what happened.
I do not seek to put words into the mouths of my constituents but there is a desperate desire among the victims' families to get to the bottom of some of the questions. All I ask is that everyone who has taken part in this interesting debate and those Members who read it will try for a moment—I know that it is an impossible task—to consider what they would do if one of their loved ones or relatives was involved. What would they expect the Government or Opposition to do? Sometimes such demands seem to be unrealistic, or are perceived to be, in the world of the civil service, or that of the Government. We should have empathy with those who are making the demands, and I know that my right hon. Friend has. We should understand their loss. It is that sense of loss that continues to motivate them, and it will do so every day of their lives until they feel that they have got to the bottom of what really happened.
There is the question of who was at fault. It is undoubted that some politicians share a proportion of the blame. The Phillips report says that the campaign of reassurance that was undertaken was mistaken. It identifies the fact that the March 1996 Cabinet refused to ban meat from animals older than 30 months, but that, subsequently, that policy was changed.
I suspect that the Conservative politicians who were involved at the time will have an opportunity to play a part in the debate. I think that they will do themselves a disservice, and a disservice to the House, if they try to rewrite history and their role in it. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, we should accept the report in the round, including in equal measure its criticisms and its acknowledgements. We should acknowledge that mistakes were made and individuals should not try to wash their hands of them. No attempt should be made to rewrite history. Those involved should accept the portion of blame that is rightly attributed to them. The families of the victims will think much more of the former Ministers who were involved if they do that.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) about the civil service. I am echoing also the words of one of my constituents, Mr. Tibbert. The civil service is unaccountable and cannot respond to the criticisms that are made of it. However, the Phillips report states that even the policies that were belatedly agreed to were not fully implemented.
My right hon. Friend said that it was primarily or exclusively the responsibility of the permanent secretary to ensure that lessons are learned within the civil service. I understand that. Given that we have not heard the last of this tragic issue, it should be understood that the families of the victims want to find answers wherever they may be, whether in the political sphere or the wider sphere of government.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—he is no longer in his place, but I do not think that I shall quote him unfairly—was asked by
534
my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston about paragraph 553 of the Phillips report, which deals with the safety of baby food and whether a ban should be extended to all foodstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he asked that question, and requested that the ban should be extended. He suggested that the report is inaccurate in its criticism of him. Whether that is a denial of convenience or one of conviction, I do not know. I am not in a position to make that judgment.
The Minister of the day is identified in the report and it is suggested that he failed in his duty and responsibility. It seems that he contests that and suggests that the blame lies elsewhere. That may amplify demands among some relatives that answers should be sought in a much wider sphere. I accept what has been said about the role of the permanent secretary, but in this instance it seems that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk is saying that such a dialogue took place between him and the then permanent secretary. Sensitivity—which I know my right hon. Friend the Minister has—will be needed in future regarding the role of the civil service. While my right hon. Friend does not have direct responsibility in any way for the civil service, can he make sure that the permanent secretary ensures that lessons are learned in the wider civil service?
As other Members have said, it is important to concentrate on what can be done now. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency is an important and ground-breaking initiative which, hopefully, will reduce the chances of this tragedy being repeated. Tragically, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), described the creation of the FSA as public relations nonsense. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regrets saying that and is considerably wiser now that the agency is up and running and doing important work.
In the short time available, I should like to single out an issue that has not yet been identified in our debate—the failure of Departments in Scotland to deal with the issue. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for dealing with different aspects of that matter. Paragraph 1104 on page 216 of the report, which deals with the appraisal of concerns about human health, states that in Scotland, any analysis was conducted by the agriculture department. There was no wider consultation; others did not participate in it and did not give their opinion.
In the report, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is quoted as saying that it expected its comments to form
"no more than one element in any Scottish Office assessment of an issue … But no such wider assessment appears to have been made by … officials"
in Scotland. That statement is worrying, and I hope that in the welcome, but complex, interrelationship between the House of Commons and the devolved institutions throughout the United Kingdom, there will be discussions and dialogues between different Departments in each devolved Administration and between Departments of different Assemblies and Parliaments.
A real concern of which I have experience involves the fact that the support services that I mentioned were missing in the past and a care package was not available. I welcome comments that the financial contribution to a future care package will be increased. Should the need

535
arise—heaven forfend—the current £1 million will be increased. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that that substantial commitment will be extended if, unfortunately, that is the case.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier comments on openness and the fact that he will publish the research that informs his decisions on any future matters of this nature. Of course, we all wish that that had been the case and that a minimum level of best practice had been applied by the previous Government; we wish that all of the information that informed decisions had been placed in the public domain. Sadly, however, those in office at the time chose not to do that.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the bold decision to publish research that he discounts in reaching his decisions, not simply that with which he agrees.
Mr. Nick Brown: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We must remember that rejected opinions have also informed decision making, so it is right for scientific views to be placed in the public domain.
Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties and by all the families who have tragically been affected by the disease.
As has been said, the report will not be the end of the affair. The tragedy is eternal for the victims' families.
5.35 pm
Mr. Tom King: I rise to speak not as a former Minister who had responsibility for the matters under discussion, but as somebody who has taken a keen interest in BSE for a considerable number of years. Looking at the Minister, I realise that he is the eighth Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with whom I have raised the issue. I suspect that some current MAFF officials know that all too well.
I am present because I want to speak about the contribution made by a remarkable constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Purdey, to progress on BSE. He appears frequently in the Phillips report and his theories and hypotheses deserve serious attention. I welcome the report. Some thought that it might conclude the matter, but as the Minister said, it is merely a staging post in the search to identify the source of BSE and, very possibly, of nvCJD. That is why I agreed with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) when he said that we owe it to all the people who have suffered so horrifically, especially from nvCJD, to seek to identify the causes of this terrible calamity. The report does not identify those causes. It states merely that
"BSE probably originated from a novel source early in the 1970s … as a consequence of a gene mutation."
A significant number of people do not believe that that is correct and many scientists hold alternative views.
I appreciate the eight Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whom I have bothered about the issue. I refer especially to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who ensured that Mr. Purdey had access to officials to discuss some of his
536
approaches, and other hon. Friends who held similar responsibilities and other current Ministers have done the same.
I am not a scientist, so I hope that the House will give me some licence on the matter. Some of the correspondence that I received from Mr. Purdey was completely incomprehensible to me, but I sought to ensure that it received proper consideration. I should like to describe Mr. Purdey's background. He is a dairy farmer in my constituency. He was a scholar at school and declined a university place to study zoology and psychology in 1972 in order to start a pioneering organic farming community in the west of Ireland. He has been farming ever since and is an independent scientist who is involved in the aetiology of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and has been investigating environmental factors in isolated clusters of TSEs throughout the world. He has published five articles on BSE and organophosphorus theory in peer-reviewed journals.
That is his background. His position originates from his opposition to the Warble Fly Order 1982. When the order was introduced, he refused to dress cattle with organophosphates because he believed that it was dangerous. He thought it that the nervous systems of cattle could be damaged by dosing at the Government's advised level, which was three times the manufacturers' recommended dose for the use of that extremely powerful chemical. As somebody who has dipped sheep, I, too, know a little bit about the strength of OP dip. Mr. Purdey's view is accepted by Lord Phillips. His theory is not that the chemical is the cause of BSE, but that it could be the rigger that destabilises the nervous system of cattle.
I should like to illustrate the way in which Mr. Purdey has pursued his theory, and how the official view has altered over time. I have correspondence that I am sure was provided on the best advice available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries which states that the overwhelming probability was that BSE came from scrapie. Subsequently, at the National Farmers Union conference, Professor Sir John Pattison announced that there was a 50:50 possibility that it came from scrapie, and I remember the impact that that had on farmers. The Phillips report now says that it is fallacious to say that it came from scrapie.
Meanwhile, Mr. Purdey marches on with his theory, which he has sustained and reinforced. It concerns the use of organophosphates. OPs are used to treat cattle with warble fly, but many humans are also exposed to OPs. They are used in crop spraying and they occur in shampoos used to treat children with headlice, and dogs. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk asked for dog leads and collars to be examined when I raised the matter with her originally. Therefore, animals and humans are exposed to OPs in their environment.
Mr. Purdey's work has continued significantly since he gave evidence to the Phillips inquiry. He has identified a link between a copper deficiency and the manganese replacement that appears to interact with OPs to cause what he luridly describes as a lethal chain reaction in the brain. My scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate, but, apparently, copper binds to the prion, and, if copper is absent, manganese will then bind.
Mr. Purdey has drawn attention to the increasing use of manganese. We now use manganese instead of lead in petrol. Manganese as used in increasing amounts in

537
poultry feed to enhance growth and egg production. It is also used as a lick to enhance bone growth in calves. Therefore, it is present in the environment. I understand that 98 per cent. of the manganese that is fed to poultry ends up in chicken litter which goes into compound feeds.
Therefore, the theory on which Mr. Purdey is working is that the interaction between OPs, which is accepted by the Phillips inquiry as a possible trigger, when combined with a manganese surplus in the brain, leads to the chain reaction that is causing the problem.
I do not know whether that is right, but I have pressed continuously for Mr. Purdey to be given support and encouragement in the form of research funds so that he can test out his theory. Professors in Italy and France have just completed studies which produce the same correlations as Mr. Purdey has produced independently as a lone dairy farmer, trying conscientiously to research the matter and capable of speaking for four hours before the Phillips inquiry.
There now appears to be a growing body of evidence that that is a much more serious theory than previously thought. It was certainly resisted by scientists in the past, but I hope that, in the light of the Minister's comments, he will ensure that the matter is pursued. I welcome his appointment of Professor Gabriel Horn. I hope that his inquiry will be sufficiently wide-ranging to consider individual viewpoints—I do not say prejudices, although the danger is that people may have preconceived ideas—and will be open to new ideas, so that the matter is pursued.
I pray in aid an important article written on 10 April 1997 by the then hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), now the Minister for the Environment, entitled "Let's find the real cause of BSE". He said:
"A new government should sweep aside these evasions."
The article was written about two or three weeks before the election, so it was an attack on the previous Government. He continued:
"The Purdey theory should now be taken very seriously by the authorities."
It is disappointing that we are now at the end of this period of government and what the Minister for the Environment wrote in opposition has still not been implemented. The contents of his article and his approach were precisely right.
I recently met Baroness Hayman. I hope that there is a determination to ensure that funds are not limited to traditional lines of inquiry and research, and that the Department will enable Mr. Pun ley's theory to be investigated thoroughly.
I welcome what the Minister said about making any scientific advice or material available to the public. I challenge him straight away, because some important material on OPs should be made public. Will he publish the work of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on the reformulation of organophosphates and the removal of phenol? That material is of significant scientific importance, and should be in the public domain. I am sure that the Minister meant what he said, because he was very forthright. He gave a categoric assurance that he would make such material available, so I hope that the Minister for Public Health will confirm that.
It is not for me to determine whether these theories are right or wrong. For 15 years, I have supported my constituent because I did not think that his idea was crazy
538
or eccentric. Originally, a cow of his with BSE that did not fit the official description of the cause of the disease was the trigger for him to pursue this career of investigation that is now gathering increasing support and understanding. I hope that his theory will be examined, because if it is right, the origins of BSE and CJD are not what we think they are, and the basis of the approach that has been followed all these years may be wrong. No one in the House would disagree that we owe it to all those who have been afflicted—whether in the agriculture industry or the families affected by CJD—not to rest until we have done everything we can to identify the cause of this terrible suffering.
5.48 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In their moving speeches, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of two of his constituents and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) told us about Donna McGivern, and I want to dedicate my remarks to one of my constituents, Donna McIntyre.
Donna was born on 13 July 1979. She lived initially in Northfield in my constituency, and went to Old Meldrum primary school and later to Dyce academy. Reading the profile that she wrote about herself at the end of her time at the school, I was reminded of many of the pupils whom I taught over the years in Aberdeen.
Donna talked about her interests: the brownies, the guides, the choir, swimming, badminton and squash. She said how she enjoyed going on holiday with a friend's family to Malta, and going on holiday to Holland with the choir in 1994. She talked of how she enjoyed her work experience as a nursery nurse and helping in an old people's home, and her ambition to go into nursing or accounting. That fits closely with the account of her by her family and friends as a caring, helpful and loving person. In 1999, she worked with the Prince's Trust Volunteers.
Towards the end of 1999 and the beginning of the millennium, Donna began to suffer from depression. In the early months of last year, she became increasingly confused. She went missing from her flat, and her sister, Lisa, found her and took her back to her father's home. She started to behave as if she were drunk. She started to lose co-ordination and basic control of her movements. She went to the doctor, and then to Fosterhill hospital on 26 August, and in the following month it was diagnosed that she almost certainly had new variant CJD. She has had very good care ever since, but her condition has steadily deteriorated. Since November she has not been able to speak. She sleeps a lot, and responds to being hugged and held by friends and family; sometimes she gives a great smile. But to appreciate the extent of the tragedy it is important to realise fully the awfulness of each person's case, and also the potential scale of the problem.
I want to express my gratitude to Donna's father, Billy McIntyre, who is present in the Strangers Gallery and who has shared his experience with me, and to Professor Hugh Pennington, the recognised leading authority on the subject, who has shared his professional expertise with me. I shall try to speak on Billy's behalf. He told me that he wanted to speak not just on his own behalf, but on behalf of other victims' families. I cannot presume to give voice to what Donna would say if she were not deprived of speech.

539
When we discussed the scale of this, Billy said to me, "This could be a time bomb." Professor Hugh Pennington told me, "There are so many unpredictable factors that we really cannot know the potential scale." Because the disease is a new variant, we do not know whether it will behave in the same way as the comparatively rare disease that we know as CJD. Indeed, if it is similar to that disease, the incubation period could be as long as 40 years. At present, it seems that all who have suffered have had a similar genetic make-up involving the MM prion. Apparently, just under 40 per cent. of the population harbour the prion.
Professor Pennington told me that we could be talking about hundreds or about hundreds of thousands. Taking the worst-case analysis, we should think of the resulting devastation of our economy, given the cost of compensation and care; but we should think even more of the human cost and the personal devastation.
As was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), the disease originated in Britain. Tragically, for too long and to an excessive extent we exported it not just to the rest of Europe but to the rest of the world, including the third world. That means that some of the world's poorest people may be affected. All too often disasters hit the poorest, in disproportionate measure.
Indeed, we may find a disproportionate distribution by wealth in our own country. One of the most infectious causes of the disease is MRM—mechanically recovered meat—which went into the cheapest sausages, pies and burgers. I now see a disturbing hypocrisy in past occasions when comparatively affluent people could be observed eating prime beef that would never be a source of danger, and saying that British beef was safe.
I want to discuss three things: blame, lessons and restitution. First, let me deal with blame. Billy told me that it was difficult to express the degree of anger and incomprehension that he was experiencing. He said it was an irony that what was done yesterday was described as no-fault compensation. Some people certainly had no fault—the poor victims, who could not be more innocent.
Billy said something that ties in with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr. He asked who would be brave enough to plead guilty. Would it be the feed manufacturers who put commercial interests before the public interest? Would it be the farmers—I am certain that there are some, somewhere—who were less than scrupulous about suspected BSE? Would it be the abattoirs and renderers who took insufficient care in extracting SBO? Would it be some of the members of the media—a question raised by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)? They prefer not to remember now that they were not all very helpful at one time. What about civil servants and Ministers?
Billy McIntyre said that he feels that two people are especially to blame. The first is a civil servant—Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer. I recognise that Phillips says that Keith Meldrum was very active later on, and I accept that he was. I also accept the points made in his defence by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), but I still believe that Mr. Meldrum deserves blame.
540
For far too long, Keith Meldrum held to the dogmatic assumption that only large quantities of infected material would pass on the disease. For that reason, he did not realise the importance of separating the processing of feeds. He delayed the introduction of bans for too long, and there was insufficient rigour in the inspection and enforcement regimes. Moreover, exports should have been halted as soon as fear of the disease emerged. In fact, those exports were vastly increased at precisely that stage.
There is a real worry that the concerns of the industry weighed more heavily with Mr. Meldrum in the early stages than did the concerns of safety. To be fair, however, he is representative of others who are responsible in the same way. I repeat a point that is often made: in this country, we do not give sufficient recognition to corporate criminal liability—what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food called institutional failure.
As a result, Phillips too often blames fairly senior civil servants and Ministers, who may have been directly responsible, but he forgets that the chain of command goes to a much higher level, in the civil service and among Ministers. Billy McIntyre offers a balance in that respect—he told me that the other person whom he really blames is Margaret Thatcher.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, who said that Phillips makes a completely convincing case in relation to the issue of rendering in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher had been accused of direct responsibility. Phillips found that rendering did not make a difference, and that BSE could not be destroyed by rendering.
Other influences were at work, however. Among them are the cuts in research funding, including that for animal and veterinary services, the pressures on research institutes to get external funding and to devote more time to those matters that helped commerce and less to what was necessary for safety, the decreases in the veterinary services referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and the emphasis on deregulation referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. Ministers, civil servants and scientists were all affected by an ethos that, far too often and far too readily, put profits before people, wealth before health and, as it turned out, money before life.
Billy says he feels disgust at the honours with which Baroness Thatcher is loaded. There will doubtless be many memorials to her, probably including some in this House, but it should be remembered that for some people her memorial may be the terrible mad-cow legacy of BSE and CJD. Donna was born just a few weeks after Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. We must eradicate the BSE infection, but we must also eradicate the more crass and materialistic aspects of Thatcherism.
There are other lessons to be learned. Billy says that we must guarantee that this does not happen again, and we must first guarantee that transmission of BSE and CJD is not still going on. In that respect, we must look at what is happening in Germany, and in respect of possible medical transmission.
Putting those guarantees in place means that we must be vigilant. We must improve surveillance, and not do so at the expense of research into the causes of the disease and into possible cures—or at least research into the

541
possibility of arresting the disease. Secrecy must no longer hold sway. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is in place, but we need far more openness, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) said. Departmentalism must be broken down; we must have joined-up government, including across devolution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said. There must be an end to the dogmatic defence of departmental positions, which can still far too often go on. There must be less arrogance and more flexibility. We need more scientists in certain Departments at top levels.
Although I see no rational connection between BSE and genetically modified foods—in fact, some of the suspicions of the latter that have followed are irrational— I recognise the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; that MBMs were being used as feed for half a century before we began to discover what was happening, and were used for most of the last century. We must always observe the precautionary principle.
I conclude by speaking of restitution. The £25 million initial compensation is very welcome as a start, and the vast increase in help with care assistance is also immensely valuable. However, I am again reminded of something that Billy McIntyre said to me. He said that the Government gave compensation to farmers so that they could replace lost animals. No compensation given to families can replace a lost daughter or a lost son. What compensation can one ever give to Donna and her fellow sufferers for the fact that they are no longer able to enjoy family life? They will not be able to enjoy the right to have a family of their own. They will not even be able to enjoy the right to life.
I talked earlier of memorials. The best memorial we could have to Donna and her fellow sufferers will be if we fight as hard as we can to eradicate both BSE and CJD and the errors that led to their becoming so widespread.
6.1 pm
Mr. William Thompson: It is a privilege to come here this evening to say something about the Phillips report, which I welcome. It is fair and reaches the right balance.
We have heard this afternoon that 86 people have died from this terrible disease. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) has graphically described the symptoms and the duration of the disease. It is tragic that young people with their lives ahead of them have been struck down by this terrible disease, which has no known cure. We all sympathise with the parents and relatives of those who have died and those who are still suffering. The fact that there are eight people who are presumably still suffering from the disease may provide some hope that the disease will not grow to the extent that some of us might fear.
When I first came to the House, I was always surprised by the attitude of the governing Labour party at Agriculture questions. There was always criticism of the Opposition; they were entirely responsible for £4 billion spent on BSE and for the tragedy. We must recognise that, in reality, we cannot blame any particular person. This disease could not have been foreseen. The scientists were working at the frontiers of science and it was impossible to predict the true nature of the disease until more symptoms appeared and more scientific knowledge became available.
542
The inquiry was right to say that we should not look for scapegoats, because they are none. Indeed, Lord Phillips is right when he also says that if those criticised were misguided, they none the less acted in accordance with their conception of the proper performance of their duties.
We have heard some criticism of the civil service and past Ministers. The Minister was right to be measured in his criticism. He, too, faces difficult decisions. It is easy to criticise when one has never been a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or held office. However, there are tremendous pressures on those who have to face the media and the likelihood of giving wrong or inadequate advice. The Minister should be commended on his restraint. I agree with the Phillips report that no one should be disciplined.
Happily for Northern Ireland, we did not suffer BSE to the same extent as the rest of the United Kingdom. That may be because of geography and the fact that we are separated by water. So far, there have been few cases of vCJD in Northern Ireland. I am glad to report that the incidence is decreasing in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
A specific test was conducted in Northern Ireland on 2,546 animals last year. The Enfer test can indicate the possible presence of BSE in an animal. It produced 60 possible cases. After further microscopic examination, 54 cases were confirmed. At first sight, that figure may appear alarming. We used to have five or six cases, but the test revealed 54. However, 700 four-year-old animals were free of the disease. That is encouraging and shows that our approach is correct and that we are taking the right measures. In several years, we hope that older animals will be clear of the disease and that it will be eradicated.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that none of the cases that were examined could have entered the food chain?
Mr. Thompson: Yes. No animal that is over 30 months enters the food chain. That confirms that the food that we eat in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom is almost certainly free of the disease. That is welcome.
Let us consider the new European regulations. Europe is discovering that BSE exists there, too. The European Union is introducing new restrictions, including one on fishmeal. That will create difficulties in the United Kingdom. Fishmeal was never considered to have played a part in the BSE crisis. I understand that the view in Europe is that fishmeal may have become adulterated with meat and bonemeal. I ask the Minister for Public Health to update us on precisely what is happening in that regard. What are the consequences of excluding fishmeal from ruminant meal? If the Government have made a decision on the matter, when will regulations come into force?
As I know that time is of the essence in this debate, I shall conclude. I am grateful, however, for having had the opportunity to speak in it.
6.10 pm
Ms Rosie Winterton: Matthew Parker, from the village of Armthorpe in my constituency, was 19 when, in 1997, he died of variant CJD. Sarah Roberts, also from Armthorpe, was 28 when,

543
in September 2000, she died of the same disease. Matthew's and Sarah's families are devastated by those deaths. The village of Armthorpe, a close-knit community, has been shocked and enormously saddened by the loss of those two young people.
I have kept in close touch with both Matthew's and Sarah's families. I pay tribute to them not only for their bravery in the dreadful circumstances that they have faced, but for their determination to do everything that they possibly can to ensure that other families do not suffer as they have.
Matthew's family—I am thinking particularly of his mother, Doreen, his grandfather and his father—campaigned vigorously for a public inquiry. I add my voice to those of right. hon. and hon. Members who have congratulated the Government on establishing the Phillips inquiry.
I have listened very carefully to Members' comments about the difficulty of laying blame at the door of any individual. It would be wrong of me, however, not to express the very real anger that I and the families in my constituency feel about the many mistakes that, as the Phillips report highlights, were made by the previous Administration.
Today, we have had apologies from two Conservative Members. Until today, however, as far as I am aware, only one Conservative Member—the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dowell)—had made an apology. The families in my constituency feel particularly angry about that. They feel that the response has been totally inadequate.
Mr. Yeo: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, when the Minister published the Phillips report, on the record, on behalf of the Conservative party, I expressed unreserved apologies? She is completely inaccurate in the claim that she has just made.
Ms Winterton: I have acknowledged that the hon. Gentleman made an apology today. I have also said that my constituents need personal apologies. I hope that he will accept that. I also hope that, in view of his comments, he will support the Government when they have to make difficult decisions on, for example, beef on the bone.
Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Winterton: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again because of time constraints.
My constituents want honesty about the past and openness in the future. Openness is crucial to maintaining trust. That was brought home to me recently when it was thought that there might be a cluster of CJD cases in my constituency. Not only had the two young people to whom I have referred died in Armthorpe, but it emerged that a third young man who had had connections with the village had died. An investigation was started into whether there was a connection between the three people who had contracted vCJD.
After the initial investigation, I asked Dr. John Radford, the director of public health, to meet me and the families to discuss the investigation. I know that Dr. Radford had some reservations about sharing the information with
544
people from outside his profession, but we had the meeting and he was open with us about what had taken place during his investigation. He later wrote to me and said that the meeting
"made me realise that we had not paid sufficient attention to the relatives and their feelings."
I want to put on record how helpful we all found Dr. Radford's open approach. I am extremely glad that the Government have made a commitment to ensuring openness and trust in the future.
One of the issues that we discussed at the meeting was the need to share information, especially about potential clusters. I understand that a template has been developed with the Colindale national communicable disease surveillance centre, with input from Doncaster and Leicestershire health authorities. That means that, if there are fears of clusters, the local authority can use the template to ensure that all avenues of investigation are covered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
I welcome the Government's positive response to the finding of the Phillips inquiry that improvements are needed to speed up the diagnosis of vCJD. I hope that the Government will consider ways, perhaps through the office of the chief medical officer, to ensure that GPs and psychiatrists are made aware of the early symptoms to look out for and the presentation of vCJD.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to provide a care pack age for those who contract vCJD. I know that David Body, who was referred to earlier, has worked hard on that. I know that Matthew and Sarah's families felt that the support that they received from Doncaster social services was good, but they were also aware that the support varied enormously across the country.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that provision is the same across the country, of a high standard, and that the Government consider providing bereavement counselling for relatives—something that the director of public health in Doncaster feels should be available.
No amount of money can ever make up for the tragic loss that the families of those who have died from this terrible disease have suffered, but I believe that the Government moved quickly in their discussions with representatives of the families on compensation, and have responded positively to my concern about those who are in receipt of social security benefits. I know that an announcement was made yesterday about that. I welcome it, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bring the regulations before Parliament quickly so that interim payments can be made.
I ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will maintain the highest standards of meat inspection In abattoirs. That concern has been raised by the Human BSE Foundation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance on that matter.
I am aware that, because of time constraints, I have not addressed many of the issues in the Phillips report. The matters that I raised are those that families in my constituency asked me to bring to the attention of Ministers. I am proud that it was the Labour Government who set up the Phillips inquiry, and I am proud that the

545
Government are responding quickly to the findings of the inquiry. Finally, my plea is that the Government continue to do everything that they can to make sure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again
6.20 pm
Mr. David Curry: We all owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Phillips for producing an extremely sane and balanced report. Naturally, at the beginning there were fears that he had been appointed to chair a hanging jury. However, he was completely faithful to the promise that he would not bring retrospective judgments to bear but would judge actions in the light of the science and information that was available at the time. In doing so, he has done a service to everybody. He has enabled us to illuminate the dilemmas that Ministers have to face.
I also pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His response has been equally measured and sensible. As he is in office, he knows that the dilemmas highlighted by the Phillips report are the daily provender of Ministers in sensitive Departments. Dilemmas such as those have appeared in the past and will continue to do so for Ministers in the present.
In the light of the Government's response to the Phillips report, I want to look forward and issue some slightly cautionary notes, in case anyone believes that the document is a new testament that will infallibly light our way. Two especially important issues are covered by chapters 4 and 6—the handling of scientific advice and coping with risk. Of course, the comments in those chapters are sensible, but they do not remove the need for Ministers to make judgments, which, at the end of the day, will be political—because they are made by Ministers. In many circumstances, the last step may always be taken if not in the dark, at least in the murk.
In applying the science, we faced—in the case of BSE—a new disease for which there was no history and little expertise. Scientific expertise was limited so there was no peer group which could review the conclusions reached by the most eminent scientists who had been brought in to advise the Government. The advice offered was, perforce, quasi-monopolistic. Of course, there were, and are, iconoclasts, or mavericks—according to one's side of the argument. How are they to be coped with? Should they be absorbed into the committee and their views brought within the framework of the advice? The danger then would be that the advice itself becomes an uneasy stand-off between opposing viewpoints. Should the Minister place trust in the established scientists—the best-known collection of advice—knowing that the maverick will always command the attention of the media and that, occasionally, the maverick may be right? All Ministers face that dilemma.
Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Curry: No, I am sorry but I cannot give way because of the time constraints.
Chapter 4 of the report notes that Departments must have the expertise to commission, understand, evaluate and then draw conclusions from scientific advice. With respect, that is self-evident, but extremely difficult. Science is more complex than it has ever been. The micro-branches of science are not understood by other
546
micro-branches of science. The generalist, who, because tasks range across a broad spectrum, is almost inevitably the person employed, may not be competent in particular spheres of expertise. One falls back on the hope that there is a peer group of other scientists so that there is a dialectic and argument can take place. However, that means that there are choices, and thus, at the end of the day, that Ministers have to make a judgment. Nothing done by the scientist removes the need for Ministers' ultimate judgments.
Chapter 6 refers to risk. The problem is that, increasingly, we face demands from the public for an absolute guarantee. As our scientific ability to test materials improves and we can detect parts per billion, products that seemed to be pure in the past may suddenly be found to contain an infinitely small element of a contaminant. Of course, the word "contamination" immediately springs to mind, and that absolute guarantee is undeliverable.
Chapter 6.6 of the Government's response states:
"Government also needs to deal with issues where people perceive possible risks to health, but where the scientific evidence of harm is inconclusive. A balance needs to be struck between intervening too much, forgoing benefits and stifling people's freedom of action, and failing to help protect them sufficiently from actual or potential hazards."
That is the nub of the issue. Once again, we are back to evaluations and judgment, and all the Minister, or the Government, can do is to place in front of the public the various factors that led him to draw his conclusions and, frankly, hope that people believe that, on balance, it is the right thing to do, knowing that someone will always say that a slightly more extreme or radical solution should have been taken. That leads us straight to the precautionary approach.
Paragraph 6.14 on the precautionary approach states:
"Where there is scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle may be applied. This holds that absence of scientific proof should not delay or prevent proportionate measures to remove or reduce threats of serious harm. The Government is committed to taking a precautionary approach where appropriate."
However, let us consider the language used there. The use of words "proportionate" and "serious harm" involves judgment. The wonderful word "appropriate" is the most important adjective in any Government's lexicon, but determining what is appropriate also involves judgment. So that paragraph lets no one off the hook; it is simply stating, in relatively elegant terms, the eternal dilemma involved in making judgments. There is no mathematical scale that can trigger action.
At the end of day, there must a certain intuitive response, and successful Ministers are often those who have a strongly intuitive sense of what is right and of which direction people demand they should take. The difficulty with the precautionary approach, which seems obviously sensible, is where to draw the line in the sand. Where should the perimeter be set around which the Minister mans those defences that are defensible? If a certain measure of precaution is taken, why not take a little further precaution? Before we know where we are, we should have moved a long way from what can be defended on strictly scientific grounds.
There has been much condemnation of the so-called culture of reassurance, but before we condemn one culture, we need to look at the alternatives. Is hesitation the alternative? Is it a culture of panic, or one in which

547
we say that we simply do not know? There is much enthusiasm for openness, and of course we say amen to that, but we must be cautious because, as my right hon. Friends have said, a populist and campaigning press may not translate an issue's complexities through to the public.
I wish to cite three contemporary cases that illustrate the dilemmas that Ministers face. I am glad that the Minister for Public Health is here, because I wish to refer to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. All the players are on scene. We have a vast majority of established scientific opinion in favour of the multiple vaccine. We have a handful of iconoclasts who say that it is causing serious disease in infants. We have Ministers bringing to bear the canon of established Government scientific advice and we have the press seizing on the minority view, with stories that are unashamedly emotional. If Ministers believe their scientific advice, and they have no reason not to, they are condemned to be reassuring in the words that they utter to the public; they have no alternative.
Let us consider another issue—GM foods, which several of my colleagues have mentioned. Openness does prevail; the trial sites are advertised and the map grid references are given, but that leads to direct action and a massively irresponsible and emotional campaign in some newspapers about Frankenstein foods, which makes it even more difficult for the Government to take sensible action. The result has been incoherence, division and confusion at the heart of Government. The Minister need not agree with that, but I simply state that that is the case.
The third case is TB in cattle, which will kill 10 or 20 times more cattle than BSE will in the coming year. In a purely agricultural sense, TB is a far greater problem than BSE. The trials that are taking place are heavily contested and may not produce a conclusive result. In fact, there is a 50:50 chance that they will not produce a result that will enable the Minister to say that science has incontrovertibly demonstrated a clear way forward. Farmers are saying, "We do not want to wait for the scientific tests to be completed, because the problem is so serious that we must make a pre-emptive strike against badgers." The badger group is saying, "You cannot prove that the badgers are responsible, and the whole trial is badly founded." That contemporary case demonstrates that Ministers' intuition has to play a role. The practical steps that must be taken are those that were taken by all my right hon. Friends when they were in Government, facing a similar dilemma and a similar outcome.
I applaud the Food Standards Agency, and Sir John Krebs has done a very good job in establishing its credibility. He has shown canny political sense, and I do not mean that in a party sense. Sir John has made remarks about organic food and about the possibility of BSE-type diseases in sheep. Immediately, red lights began to flash, signalling that his remarks would be contested.
Within Government and its agencies, the lesson to be learned from the BSE episode is the importance of co-ordinating scientific effort, so that scientists know what other scientists are doing. I am referring not to the centralisation of science, but to the need for awareness of what research is being undertaken. There must be a communication channel between scientists and officials, and it is important that scientists' claims be evaluated by officials, Officials should approach Ministers when the
548
matter becomes one that, politically, they need to know about. Finally, there is a need to enforce the actions that have been decreed. That takes us straight to the old issues of resources, money and staff, which are the subject of everyday arguments between Departments.
We must be careful that we do not expect scientists to substitute for politicians. Scientists make politicians' dilemmas more difficult, not easier. They provide explanations and options; they do not provide answers to the sort of questions that the public ask and politicians need to answer. At the end of the day, the decisions will be political and they will be based on the balance of advice, which will rarely point to a definitive outcome. On every ministerial desk should be printed the legend, "There but for the grace of God … ", and I cannot help but feel that the Minister's sane, balanced response to this issue demonstrates that perhaps, in his mind, he has that legend on his own desk.
6.33 pm
Judy Mallaber: The last few Labour Members who have spoken have given extremely moving accounts of what has happened to their constituents. My position is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) because one of my first surgery cases was brought to me by Shirley Warne, who has been in the Gallery today. She came to my surgery on the way to visit her son, Chris, who was in hospital dying of CJD. I subsequently visited and spoke to Shirley and her husband, Terry, many times. Terry is currently in the same neurological ward at Derby royal infirmary, where Chris died, and I send him my best wishes.
Shirley and Terry wanted me to argue for a public inquiry. As a very new MP, I was hesitant about doing so because I did not want to raise their hopes when I did not know whether we would get such an inquiry. I think it unlikely that we would have had an inquiry if we had not had a Labour Government. When I went to see the then Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), he told me that his son had been at university with someone who had died of CJD, so he was well aware of the tragedy of the disease and felt strongly about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was determined that we had to get to the bottom of the matter because we did not know how big a tragedy it would turn out to be and the victims' families wanted answers.
The families are angry, as I am, because there have not been sufficient individual apologies for what has happened. I do not say that in terms of ascribing individual blame, but mistakes were made, as outlined in the Phillips report. Irrespective of whether they were made by individuals, or as a result of the system that determines how the Government and Departments work, it is necessary for whoever runs an organisation to take responsibility and say sorry. People want a handsome apology.
I congratulate the Government on their response. Shirley told me last night that she had been talking to two other families who had spoken about the excellent care and assistance that they were receiving at home from nurses and the case worker who discussed their needs with them. She did not think that one hospital gave them that level of support when Chris was dying, although she greatly praised the staff at Derby royal infirmary for the care that they provided.

549
Mistakes were made and responsibility must be taken for them. We may not be able to prevent health and food scares from occurring, but we can take on board the well-written findings, which are summarised in the interim response. They state:
"To establish credibility it is necessary to generate trust … Trust can only be generated by openness … Openness requires recognition of uncertainty, where it exists.'
We understand that the findings and recommendations embark us on a difficult agenda, but the previous Government failed to accept that there was uncertainty. They were determined to deny that it existed.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said that he had been criticised for not being sufficiently open about the health scares, and outlined his response to that. When I considered that criticism and examined the evidence in the various volumes of the report, I was struck by the fact that Ron Davies, the then Opposition spokesman on agriculture, raised a huge number of issues on the SBO ban. He was extremely tenacious. As my right hon. Friends who were shadow spokesmen at the time have made clear, the then Opposition pursued many issues with considerable persistence. I understand that it is difficult for Ministers to take such difficult issues on board, but the lessons should be learned. The least that we can do for the families who have suffered such tragedies is to acknowledge that openly and fully.
Although we cannot necessarily prevent food and health scares from occurring, we can say that the lessons will be learned. Never again will we have a culture of secrecy; never again will regulation be thought of as merely bureaucratic, especially when it is in place to protect people. We need to examine the systems so that there is openness; to take the precautionary principle to heart; to trust people; and to acknowledge that it is difficult to talk about risks and hard for the public to assess them. Instead of hiding facts, we must be open.
I was in the Gallery before the debate began and spoke to the parents—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. It is not acceptable to refer to the Gallery.
Judy Mallaber: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The solicitor, David Body, told me that his clients are pleased with the compensation package and the response, but want the lessons to be learned and put into effect. A Conservative Member said that this is the start of the process. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that the lessons are fully followed up. We need to do that for all those people who have suffered and to ensure that others do not suffer in the future.
6.39 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I endorse the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). This is the start of the process and we accept many of the points that she made.
I also share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and pay tribute to the Minister for his measured and responsible approach to the debate. He is to be commended on setting the tone for the debate. It follows from his recent comments on the "On the Record" programme, when he said that it would be a
550
mistake to turn this issue into a fight along party political lines. That view was reiterated by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who said that it is primarily an issue about how government works, whichever political party happens to be in power. The Minister deserves credit for ensuring a balanced and purposeful debate.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) asked whether an incoming Conservative Government would implement, as the current Government intend to do, the recommendations of the Phillips report in full. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) gave that assurance at the start of the debate, and I take this opportunity to repeat the commitment.
The House has, quite rightly, dealt with the human dimension in this debate. Let us remember that much of the Phillips report dealt with the problem of vCJD as much as with that of BSE. I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the sympathy that Conservative Members have for the families of those who lost loved ones to the disease and to those who are struggling with the problems of a family member who has contracted it. We welcome the Government's response to the needs of those families—what they have done already and what they propose to do. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister for Public Health says about further moves in that regard.
One can understand the anger and the frustration of the families involved and their need to find someone to be accountable. Their views were sympathetically put in the debate by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and by the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). However, chapter 1 of the executive summary of the Phillips report concludes:
"The Government did not lie to the public about BSE. It believed that the risks posed by BSE to humans were remote."
Later it adds that, in the years covered by the report,
"most of those responsible for responding to the challenge posed by BSE emerge with credit."
However, the report alludes to a number of shortcomings in the way that things were done. They were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk in his opening remarks and I reiterate our acceptance of the shortcomings and our regret that they happened.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were involved directly in these matters have put their case in the debate and it will have been clear to the House that they did so without equivocation. Nowhere in Phillips is their integrity impugned. To give the Minister credit, when he was interviewed on "On the Record" in February this year, he said:
"Anyone who has come to our Report looking to allocate blame will go away disappointed."
Tony Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, I have not got much time and I want to give the Minister time to respond.
The Phillips report is a thorough investigation and appraisal of the BSE issues, and offers a fair and balanced view of events. It makes three main recommendations to the Government: first, the effectiveness of communication within government and between Departments needs to be

551
considered and improved dramatically; secondly, the response time to implement decisions taken at ministerial level needs to be addressed; and, thirdly, we must consider the degree of openness with the public on health-risk issues.
On communications between Departments, we welcome the formation of the National Zoonoses Group, chaired by the chief medical officer, to address the risk to human health posed by zoonoses and to consider new and emerging diseases. To access the best scientific advice, we welcome "Guidelines 2000" from the Office of Science and Technology. It is mentioned in the Phillips report that the Meat and Livestock Commission, up to March 1996, appears not to have been covering all its statutory objectives, and that it will be putting proposals to the Government soon to achieve a better balance between its responsibilities to both stakeholders and consumers. That is a sensible move, and we trust that the Government will respond positively.
The issue of openness has been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members. The Government's main response is to point to the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. Although it is now generally welcomed, it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that had the FSA been in force earlier, a less damaging evolution of BSE and related variant CJD would have been the result. As the report concludes in chapter 1 of the executive summary,
"it was not MAFF's policy to lean in favour of the agricultural producers to the detriment of the consumer."
As many of my right hon. Friends who were involved directly in government at the time have confirmed, decisions in relation to human health implications were taken in good faith.
Many issues relating to scientific advice come within the scope of greater openness. The Government are right to respond in the positive way that they have to recommendations about how, in future, scientific information will be made available to the general public. Although we were not able to have a blanket reassurance on the matter during the debate, we welcome the Minister's assurance that he will publish the scientific advice that is put to him within the Ministry.
A critical area of science is that of testing and the need to leave no research avenue uninvestigated. That point was raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). In their response to the Phillips report, the Government agree with the finding that tissues in an animal incubating a TSE may be infectious before the animal has developed clinical signs of the disease. That has serious implications for food safety in meat under 30 months, despite the application of the precautionary principle.
Furthermore, the Government accept in their response that the most effective way of reducing the risk would be to have a diagnostic test sensitive enough to detect infected animals in the pre-clinical stages, which could therefore be used in widespread screening programmes.
We welcome the Government's initiative in asking Professor Horn to lead a team of scientists to review our understanding of the origin of BSE. We hope and expect that in this they will review the issue of testing. Perhaps
552
that is the most important issue to come out of the Phillips report. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke about the families' desperate need to get to the bottom of the BSE-CJD problem. We share that view.
The question has been raised of the efficacy and accuracy of the testing for BSE in cattle older than 30 months. It is now part of the European Commission's raft of measures to counter the problem. However, we have not yet had a clear and unequivocal statement from the Government on their view of the test. A spokesman for the commissioner, David Byrne, said that a negative test result on its own did not mean that beef from cattle older than 30 months was safe to eat. He said:
"We've never sold it".—
that is the test—
"as a safety measure. We sell it as a measure to enhance consumer confidence. A negative result does not mean beef is negative."
Although that admission could be welcomed as a sign of greater openness, it nevertheless invites questions of the Government and the FSA.
The history of BSE since the mid-1980s is as tragic an event as we have ever experienced in this country. Great distress and anger have been caused not only to the families of variant CJD victims but to the livestock farming community. We should not lose sight of the fact that livelihoods have been ruined and businesses destroyed in the agriculture sector as well. The Opposition accept that mistakes were made, but we join the Government in responding positively to all the recommendations set out in Lord Phillips' report. The families affected need to know how BSE originated and how it happened. We share those views and pledge out support for the Government in their endeavour to find the answers.
6.50 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): We have had a measured, thoughtful and constructive debate this afternoon about the BSE inquiry and the tragedy of new variant CJD that lies behind it. Many Members began their speeches by expressing sympathy for the families whose lives have been turned upside down and often devastated by nvCJD. I join them, for we need always to bear in mind that reality when we consider the events that lie behind the BSE inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister gave a clear summary of the extremely thorough and extensive Phillips report, and the shortcomings and problems that it identified. He also explained the key themes in the Government's interim response. I shall not go over that ground and I apologise now to any Members whose points I am not able to respond to in the time that remains.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) discussed issues of openness; he and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) both welcomed the report. I welcome their commitment to pursuing the issues behind the report and its conclusions. My right hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) described their concerns and the questions that they asked in the 1990s. They described their frustration in raising those issues in discussion and debate at that time.
The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) welcomed the report and raised important issues, based on his experience. I am certainly

553
interested in considering further the questions that he asked about whether or not the fear of judicial review might prevent an effective precautionary approach from being adopted. That is clearly an area in which the publication of scientific evidence can play an important role, and we need to consider it further.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) expressed support for the Food Standards Agency, which I welcome. However, I disagree that the Government consider the Phillips report as a done and dusted deal and believe that no more needs to be done. The reverse is true, as our debate has shown. A huge amount needs to be done to ensure that the response to the report is properly embedded across Government. Already, a huge amount has been done, but there is certainly more to do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) described powerfully the experiences both of constituents who are suffering today from nvCJD and of the families of those who have died from the condition. Many of those accounts were moving. I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. and hon. Friends have done in raising their constituents' concerns. Certainly, many of them have expressed those concerns directly to Ministers, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston came to see Ministers with a delegation to outline concerns especially about the need for care packages and the importance of improving care for those suffering from nvCJD.
I would like to highlight a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central; many of those victims' families have campaigned for a public inquiry for a long time. Those of us who will benefit from the conclusions of the Phillips report and their implementation in future owe those families a debt for their tenacity in pursuing that issue at an extremely difficult time for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) spoke about how much was known about the transmission of the disease at an early stage. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—whose speech I apologise for missing—made interesting points about the importance of the media in communicating risk. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the need to find the origins of BSE and nvCJD, and the role that OPs may have played. My right hon. Friend the Minister is happy to look into the report that he mentioned, and will write to him on that issue.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) welcomed the measures that are making a difference to controlling BSE in Northern Ireland. He raised the ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants. I can tell him that the EU ban will be reviewed before 1 July. The Government will consider the UK position in the light of further scientific advice, the results of the Commission's missions to member states and other developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley spoke about the failure to deal with uncertainty. I should like to return to discussion on that subject in future. I shall return also to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central about care and compensation. On her concerns about meat inspection, however, I can tell her that no formal proposals have been
554
made to change the rules, although I understand that the European Commission has circulated a working document containing initial ideas on a risk-based meat inspection system. The Government's concern at every stage will be to ensure that proper standards are in place to protect public health.
In the remaining time, I want to concentrate on three health issues that have arisen several times in the debate. First, I should like to deal with the care and support that we provide for those who are now suffering because of what went wrong in the past in respect of BSE and nvCJD. I know that many of the affected families understandably feel angry and that their troubles have been exacerbated by struggling to get the care and support that they need. The BSE inquiry identified a lack of sufficient support for patients and their families. All the lessons that we learn for the future will have come too late for those people.
Many hon. Members have expressed their concern about that to the Department. That is why the Government announced on the report's publication that £1 million would be made available for a care fund to support patients who were being nursed at home by their families. The fund is already being used to support patients in the community and to pay for elements of care that cannot readily be supplied by local health and social services. We are keen to ensure that those care packages continue to be shaped around the families' views and needs.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that we will certainly review the size of that fund if more cases arise. It is being administered by the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh and its aim is to provide uniform care throughout the country, to ensure that families can speedily access the expertise that they need to support them whenever they find themselves in this dreadful situation. We intend forthcoming guidance on home care charges to state that CJD patients should not pay them.
We also announced on the report's publication that we intended to make special compensation payments to those who contracted nvCJD and their families. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that, although discussions are continuing with the legal representatives of the affected families, we will make interim payments of £25,000 in the meantime. We will also introduce regulations to ensure that the payments are not taken into account in the calculation of income-related social security benefits. We will do that as swiftly as we can.
I want to deal briefly with the important, but not easy, issue of assessing and communicating risk. The Phillips report states:
"The other casualty of the BSE story has been the destruction of the credibility of government pronouncements."
That is extremely serious; it is about not only BSE, but trust in Government across the board and in pronouncements on health and safety. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the key is openness and honesty with the public about risk. That means publicising scientific advice and providing people with the facts so that they can make their own decisions about whether the Government are making a sensible policy judgment. We must also be able to distinguish between circumstances in which there is said to be no scientific evidence of a risk because there is lots of

555
scientific evidence that does not support it, and circumstances in which there is simply no good evidence at all. There is a distinction between the two that we have not always made in the past in public health, but we must do so now.
For example, the experts tell us that there is a good deal of evidence to show that there is no link between MMR vaccines and autism. On mobile phones, on the other hand, they tell us that there is simply no good evidence at all, which is why we must take a different approach with regard to those matters. We must publish all the scientific evidence at every stage, whether or not it favours our conclusions. That is critical to providing people with increasing confidence in Government pronouncements.
It is of great concern that public confidence in Government pronouncements has been undermined. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must do everything that we can to improve that.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
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.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
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.—[Mr. McNulty.]
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.—[Mr. McNulty.]
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.'—[Mr. McNulty.]
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'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Rail Network
  7 pm
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: I bring a petition from the citizens of St. Albans, bearing several thousand signatures, asking for the track and signalling of the rail network to be brought back into public ownership. It is most appropriate in view of today's news that several extra billion pounds worth of revenue will be required for the east coast mainline uprating.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of residents of St. Albans
  Sheweth
  That public confidence in the safety of the rail network has been severely undermined as a result of recent events.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House restores the public's confidence in the rail system by passing legislation to return the rail network to public ownership and accountability.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

UK-US Relations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The debate is about the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe. In a recent MORI poll, people were asked:
"In a crisis, which of these—Europe, the Commonwealth or the United States—do you think would be Britain's most reliable political ally?"
The result was 16 per cent. for Europe, 15 per cent.—surprisingly—for the Commonwealth, and 59 per cent. for the United States.
I believe that there is a special relationship, but that view is not held by everyone. The director of historical studies at Cambridge, Professor David Reynolds, exemplifies the view that the special relationship is artificial. He claims:
"Recognising that the special relationship has been in part a deliberate British creation—a tradition invented as a tool of diplomacy—helps us appreciate the artifice that lays behind fulsome official British rhetoric about America."
I disagree. That is unrealistic. The special relationship is solid—rooted, as it is, in trading, defensive and societal interactions on a massive scale. One need only consider the trade flows between our two nations or the 3 million Britons who visit the US each year.
The US and the UK rank first and second, respectively, as Our two countries are also the largest recipients of foreign investment, as well as one another's largest foreign investor. United States investment alone accounts for approximately 40 per cent. of the UK's entire of foreign investment, and in 1998, the total value of Anglo-American trade reached $165 billion—larger in value than the economies of most nation states.
Neither is this massive mutual investment in decline. Between 1991 and 1997, the value of UK exports to the US increased by 50 per cent., as did UK imports from the US. In a world where 51 of the 100 most valuable entities are not nation states but corporations, it is Anglo-American corporations that lead the way, accounting as they do for almost half of worldwide merger and acquisition activity during the last 20 years of the 20th century.
Despite that massive mutual investment, barriers and threats to the special relationship remain, especially in the spheres of trade and defence. I shall begin by examining barriers and threats to trade, before discussing the dangers to the Atlantic alliance.
Although successive general agreement on tariffs and trade and World Trade Organisation accords have reduced trading tariffs to an average of just 2.6 per cent., much Anglo-American commerce remains subject to tariffs as high as 15 per cent. In a report last August, the US International Trade Commission estimated that the elimination of those tariffs would boost bilateral trade by around 10 per cent., and would have the effect of lowering prices in the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister has seen the ITC's report, in which it said:
"Despite the healthy trade relationship between America and the UK, trade barriers persist. They are evident in agricultural products; pharmaceuticals; textiles; apparel and footwear; machinery and equipment; and services."
558
That is bad news, because the report was about the impact on the United States economy of including the United Kingdom in the North American Free Trade Area.
Ever since entering the single market, the UK has entrusted the terms of her foreign trade to the European Union, and thus our scope for unilateral action to reduce tariffs against the US is unfortunately limited. We can and must do more to bolster the feeble efforts of the European Union to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
Under French pressure, the attempts of Sir Leon Brittan to conclude an agreement collapsed repeatedly. On everything from bananas, to beef, to offshore tax rules, considerable differences remain. The broader problem is that, rather than focusing on the extension of free trade, the EU Trade Commission has focused on the extension of its own authority. In the use of its regulatory powers over trade, the EU could learn a lot from the United States, and I shall explain how.
The instrument allowing the regulation of trade between the component states of the US is the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Specifically, the ICC gives the federal Government power to regulate trade between, but not within, the 50 states. Like the economic harmonisation provisions of the Maastricht treaty, liberal interpretations of the ICC by Congress, and at times by the Supreme Court, have allowed the regulation of intrastate activities when they have had but tenuous effects on interstate commerce. An instrument designed to facilitate trade between states thereby became a vehicle for torrents of federal regulation. In much the same way, Brussels has used the aim of economic harmonisation to justify its regulation of everything from Europeans' working hours to the shape of their fruit.
Yet in the US, at least, there has been a sea change in the federal Government's use of their power to regulate interstate commerce—a change that Brussels could do well to learn from. That change came in 1995 with the Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez. Chief Justice Rhenquist's ruling in Lopez turned on his reasoning that if all that is required to justify the regulation of an intrastate activity is that it is shown to possess some small nexus with interstate commerce, there would exist in America the potential for not merely federal, but completely centralised government. Rhenquist' s jurisprudence contains a powerful lesson for the EU: power over interstate commerce should be used to facilitate trade, not as a Trojan horse for extraneous federal regulation.
The EU lacks the check on centralisation provided in the US by the Supreme Court, whose recent rulings on the limits of interstate trade regulation should be a lesson to Brussels. The court's ruling in Maryland v. Wirtz, for example, attempted to delineate how the federal Government could use their power over interstate commerce to impose wider regulation. The decision on Maryland stated:
"The Supreme Court has never declared that the Federal Government may use a relatively trivial impact upon commerce as an excuse for broader regulation of state or private activities."
Were something of the court's wisdom applied to the European Union, we could be spared meddlesome interventions concerning the milk content of chocolate, hairdressers' tea breaks—with which I am very familiar—and other such trivia.
Unfortunately, Brussels is an unlikely student of Chief Justice Rhenquist, not least because its governing ambition has been to achieve, and not—unlike John Locke

559
and the American constitution—avoid, the total hegemony of government. In a perverse ordering of priorities, Brussels has failed to stop its constant distortion of interstate trade with public subsidies and price fixing. Let us consider the heavily subsidised farming in continental Europe, and the state airlines.
In any event, countries such as France do not seem to share the respect for law shown by Britain and the United States. We enforce European Union directives and law, while other countries seem to ignore them. This debate follows an earlier debate on BSE. The disrespect for law is exemplified by France's continued refusal—against EU law—to import British beef, though it be free of BSE.
I want to say something about defence, and in doing so to endorse the popular and correct opinion that the Atlantic alliance is in danger. A convenient myth has evolved in Europe that the Russian threat has—for want of a better word—evaporated. In fact, Russia's perestroika may prove vestigial, with the future election of an autocrat. Even some of Vladimir Putin's recent actions on control of the media should give some cause for alarm. Russia's present governing arrangement is more plutocratic than democratic, and remains highly volatile.
The notion that Europe can relax in the company of such a neighbour, and that the EU can pursue policies undermining NATO and establish a defence union characterised by underfunding, undermanning and tension between its competent nations, is misguided. We have already seen Russia loosen her criteria for the use of nuclear missiles, while Vladimir Putin made increasing military expenditure by 50 per cent. central to his presidential campaign.
A record 30 per cent. of Russia's defence spending was devoted to military procurement in 1999. Putin also backs the development of a new generation of multiple re-entry missiles, capable of penetrating the most sophisticated missile defence systems yet envisaged. Conversely, European nations have been making drastic cuts in their defence expenditure. In devoting, on average, less than 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product to defence, they have in effect been freeriding on United States defence expenditure, fuelling calls by Condaleezza Rice—among many Americans—for US forces to withdraw from Europe completely. Following a decision rightly criticised by the US's outgoing Defence Secretary, William Cohen, Germany reduced her military expenditure in December 1999 to a pitiful 1.9 per cent. of GDP. The UK now spends just 2.5 per cent. of her GDP on defence.
Especially worrying is the establishment of the 65,000-strong European army at the 1999 Helsinki summit. It has neither adequate funding nor the necessary co-ordination to realise its aims. In fact, that may be just as well. President Chirac has said:
"The object of the European defence identity is to contain the United States".
How ridiculous!
Meanwhile, the Franco-German summit, which also took place in December 1999, contained declarations not only on a shared military intelligence satellite, Syracuse 3, and a rapid reaction force, but on a heavy-lift capacity. Dr. Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute has estimated—excepting the unlikely prospect of the United States lending Europe a fleet of Galaxy
560
aircraft—that acquiring heavy-lift capacity would cost the already overburdened European taxpayer $100 billion a year for the next 10 years.
The Western European Union, moreover, has now been folded into the EU. From France's perspective, subsuming the WEU is designed exactly to allow Europe one day to jettison NATO altogether. Why else, indeed, would the ambitious Javier Solana opt to leave NATO in order to head the—formerly unimportant—WEU? France's desire to undermine NATO resurfaced in January 2000, when Paris sided with China and Russia to argue that the Pentagon's proposed national missile defence system contravened the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty.
The question in Washington is, of course, why should we lend Europe the equipment that its defence ambitions require? While in joint command through NATO the US has shown herself prepared, when asked, to contribute to the solving of essentially European conflicts. The US air force dispatched some 90 per cent. of the bombs dropped on Kosovo. However, denied a commanding role, the US would be foolhardy to sign over its NATO equipment, especially when only a few days ago the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said:
"The EU should aspire to be a world power—not just a trading bloc, but a political entity."
We now hear that the European army—for that is what it is—is looking to use discarded Ukrainian military equipment as a means of operating without US support. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. The British Government may be too blind to see it, but it is just such anti-Americanism that continues to motivate French support for European defence. The decision to allow American members of NATO's operations centre, SHAPE, to sit on the new EU military committees, for example, was greeted in France with unbridled fury.
The conclusion to be drawn from all that I have said today is that there exists a yawning gap between our formal, treaty ties to the Europe Union on the one hand, and our cultural and trading ties with the United States on the other. The Government must be resolute and take action to narrow and close this gap. As a first move, they must press for the abolition of tariffs on Anglo-American trade—whether in co-operation with the EU or, if necessary, unilaterally. The Government must also resist the drive toward a fully fledged European army.
Smaller but no less significant measures could also be taken to bolster Anglo-American relations, such as allowing citizens of the US the same speedy passage through UK immigration as is enjoyed by EU citizens. Certainly, it is an indignity to thousands of former American and Commonwealth servicemen—who fought for Britain, whence many of them hailed—that they must queue as "aliens" to enter our country.
There can be no doubt that a special relationship exists between the US and the UK, but that relationship must find formal expression if it is to survive and prosper. As the loose relationship of Spain and Portugal with South America reminds us, cultural ties alone are not enough to foster close co-operation. The use of trade policy to bolster Anglo-American relations is now almost entirely denied to us, thanks to our membership of the European Union. The expression of the special relationship in defence co-operation must not be allowed to go the same way.
Britain is reaching a critical point in its history. It is being driven along, l fear, by the EU's desire to "contain the United States"—another phrase used by President

561
Chirac. How quickly France forgets its debt of honour to the American war dead who fell on the beaches of Normandy 57 years ago.
The Kaiser used to say, "Those who are not with us are against us." I hope that Britain will not be forced into a choice between the United States and the European Union. However, if such a choice were ever forced upon us, I have no hesitation in saying that our destiny should lie with English-speaking nations such as the United States. They share with us a common legal system, a respect for the rule of law, a common history, and a common sense of democracy and decency.
7.19 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): It is always a pleasure to respond to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I well remember my visit to Lichfield at his invitation in my previous incarnation when he was mobbed by his constituents in the high street, all asking for the name of his hairdresser.
It is a great pleasure also to see in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster)—in my view, the best Member of Parliament that Hastings and Rye has ever produced. I look forward to visiting his constituency in March of this year.
This is an important and timely debate, as it is being held near to the visit of the Prime Minister to President Bush. We wish the new Administration well in their endeavours. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has just returned from a highly successful visit to the United States where he met the new and dynamic Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Britain and the United States have a uniquely close relationship, based on common values, common interests and a common language. I want to mention a couple of those aspects. Our political systems are founded on a shared liberal outlook and values: freedom, free speech and free trade. Britain's strategic partnership with the US in NATO remains fundamental to the national security of both our countries. The US, as the hon. Gentleman said, is our biggest single export market. We are the biggest investors in each other's country.
There are close personal ties between our peoples at every level. More happens in the US that is relevant to Britain than in any other country. In the limited amount of time left to me by the hon. Gentleman, I hope to explore the fact that our position as a leading player in the European Union enhances this relationship.
The transatlantic relationship will remain strong because our vital national interests coincide now as much as they ever did. The Government are committed to working with the new Administration as we have done with previous ones in pursuit of our common interests. President Bush has confirmed to the Prime Minister that he shares this determination. The warmth shown to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary by the Secretary of State bodes very well for the future. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Washington from 22 to 24 February will re-cement this important relationship.
Last year, Britain sold £28 billion, $40 billion, worth of goods to the American market, and bought about the same amount of American goods. We sell more to Boeing
562
than we do to many countries. British interests in many of the 50 states individually outweigh our interests in most other countries. Year after year, Britain and the US are the biggest investors in each other's country. We are now the most important overseas investor in California, having just overtaken Japan. Some 5,600 American companies see Britain as their base in the European single market.
It is important to explore some aspects of what the hon. Gentleman said. First, he made a number of proposals which I shall dub "the Fabricant proposals", if I may. I will study them. If we can do anything that will enhance the relationship between the US and Britain, we are certainly willing to do it. If he would like to come to see me to discuss the proposals, I will be more than happy to do that. No doubt that will feature prominently on his website. I know that other meetings I have had with the hon. Gentleman have reverberated around the world.
The US seeks to ensure that Britain is a leading player in the EU. Since 1 May 1997, the Government have been committed to playing that leading role. We have been supported by the American Government and that has not in any way affected the special relationship we have with the US. It is because we are playing a role in Brussels and shaping the agenda in Europe that the US benefits, as do our business people and our own people.
The second point that the hon. Gentleman raised concerned defence and foreign policy. That gives me an excellent opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstanding sown by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary, as he travels like a weasel to Washington on various occasions trying to spread disharmony among those on the Hill.
We are absolutely committed to NATO, which forms the cornerstone of our defence policy and we will do nothing to undermine it. However, we believe that our relationship with our European partners through the new European defence policy will lead to NATO's enhancement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lichfield makes a funny face, but I assure him that we will act only when NATO does not wish to act. We will act only in co-operation and in consultation with NATO and on those key tasks—the Petersberg tasks—that have been agreed by successive Governments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that they were agreed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence. The initiative is therefore not new, but has been on-going under several different Administrations.
Our discussions with our European partners and colleagues in the past year—certainly since the St. Malo conference when the matter was first raised between France and Britain—show an absolute desire to ensure a co-ordinated approach. Colin Powell and the American Government understand that, and have supported what we have said. That does not prevent an individual, usually from a former Administration, from appearing on "Newsnight" and being presented by Mr. Jeremy Paxman as a great authority on the subject. Of course, people have raised anxieties, but they do not need to worry. We will not act without our NATO partners. That has been agreed and approved by all the European leaders. My meetings in the European Council suggest that the matter will be developed in the next weeks, months and years.

563
We do not need to choose between the United States and the European Union. We are in the European Union, as are eight of our top 10 trading partners and 700,000 British businesses. A huge amount of trade takes place with other European Union countries, yet some Conservative Members, when they attend our proceedings, say that Britain should withdraw from the European Union. We believe in a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. That is why we support the admission of applicant countries to the European Union. The hon. Gentleman tries to be tough and macho on the issues that we are considering, but he does not need to be. I know he accepts that Britain is a European country and that our future is in Europe.
We can maintain strong relationships with Europe and the United States. Indeed, the stronger the ties with the United States, the stronger the ties with other European countries. We are determined that developments in Europe should strengthen, not undermine, our strategic partnership with the United States. Britain's pivotal role in the transatlantic alliance is valued by our friends in Europe and in the United States.
564
Any loss of influence in Europe would damage our economic and strategic relations with the United States. One of the best ways to maintain Britain's influence and interest in the United States is for us to continue the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the past four years and ensure that we are key players. The Prime Minister's role at the Nice summit last month further strengthened our influence in Europe and therefore our relationship with the United States.
As the Foreign Secretary has said, however, it is not a choice between the United States and Europe. There is no tension. The tension is created by those who want to sow mischief. I urge the hon. Gentleman, who I know thinks deeply about these matters, to reconsider some of the views that he has expressed today. Perhaps by the time that we meet to discuss the Fabricant proposals, he will be able to tell me that he strongly supports our relationship with the United States and strongly supports our relationship with our European partners.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Ofsted
[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999–2000, Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools 1998–99, HC 345, Seventh Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999–2000, Government and OFSTED Response to the Committee's Sixth Report, HC 861, Second Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000–01, OFSTED Corporate Plan 2000, HC 34, and Second Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000– 01, Government's Response to the Committee's Second Report, HC 258.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Pope.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the Office for Standards in Education, which forms part of a process that has been instituted in Parliament over time. On becoming Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment a little over a year ago, I discovered that colleagues and former Chairmen of the Committee had made great progress in holding the chief inspector to account. I hope that you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, by allowing me to outline the historical background to the current position. This important debate reflects what is an outstanding achievement in education, so I shall try not to adopt a party political tone.
Ofsted was created by a former Government; as I recall, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) created it. Although one never quite knew what he would get up to next, he proved an innovator in virtually all the ministerial posts that he held: as Under-Secretary at the former Ministry of Transport, as Secretary of State for Health, as Secretary of State for Education and Science and as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Gentleman decided, as many people in the education world had, that we needed to know whether school standards were improving and whether teaching was of a sufficiently high standard. It is a mark of the present Government that, on taking office in 1997, they took the same view and recognised Ofsted's achievement. They recognised the need for an independent body that scrutinised school standards and that reported to the Secretary of State, so that appropriate changes could be made where necessary.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have dedicated myself to trying to improve British competitiveness. In that time, the desire to make us more effective and efficient, and better at creating,
124WH
spreading and sharing wealth, has formed the core of my being. Having examined the relevant figures before this sitting, I have to say that any industrial sector that achieved the results that we have achieved in education would be the most remarkable that one could imagine. In 1992–93, 29.6 per cent. of lessons at primary schools were deemed unsatisfactory or poor. According to the most recent figures, 4.1 per cent. were deemed unsatisfactory or poor. That is an outstanding achievement in anyone's terms. In secondary schools, 21.1 per cent. of lessons were unsatisfactory or poor in 1992–1993. That figure dropped to 6 per cent. in 1999–2000.
Across the piece, we can see dramatic change in the quality of the lessons and education that most children receive. However, we know from experience elsewhere that we must not relent in the search for higher standards. It would be a recipe for disaster if people in education said, "We want to pack up Ofsted. We have done the job. We have made a real improvement. Let us all go home." My private sector experience taught me two things. First, if one cannot measure it, one cannot manage it—of course, one must measure consistently over time. Secondly, every time one feels that one has achieved something, a new opportunity arises to get even better.
No member of the Select Committee and no one with a genuine interest in education would want to get rid of Ofsted. Ofsted was founded to report the results of the regular independent inspections of schools to the Secretary of State, so that he or she could take speedy action. That process has built up over the years.
Strangely, there has been a lack of clarity about whom Ofsted was accountable to. I have examined views on that subject in press cuttings from the past nine years. It was interesting to read that some people thought Ofsted was responsible to the Queen, others thought it was responsible to the Secretary of State and others thought it was responsible directly to the Prime Minister. However, the most consistent view that emerged, which was shaped by our previous inquiries into the workings of Ofsted, was that the chief inspector was responsible to the Select Committee.
That is a clear relationship, but in a sense it is an odd one. Ofsted is a strange creature—a previous chief inspector called it a Frankenstein monster—because it was put together randomly. It is a non-ministerial department that is accountable to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. In other words, it is responsible to Parliament through our Select Committee. We must discharge that serious duty responsibly.
That is why I shall try not to be party political today. I hope that my opening remarks, which included a tribute to the innovation and imagination of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, got the balance right. The Government have not only added to the work, responsibilities and remit of Ofsted, but ensured that there was no disjunction by allowing the chief inspector to have a long period of continuity, which stretched across two Governments. That is the background to the way in which we have established a good pattern in terms of accountability.

125WH
We meet with the chief inspector twice a year. In the spring, we discuss his annual report. In the autumn, we discuss his conduct of the office—in short, the way that Ofsted runs its operations. The press do not always understand that we have two contrasting meetings. The meetings in the spring tend to be more amicable than those in the autumn. In the spring meetings, we examine, take a general view on and ask questions about the annual report. During my chairmanship and that of my predecessor, they have been reasonably happy occasions. The chief inspector has usually reported remarkable progress on education standards. The atmosphere tends to be positive at those meetings.
The autumn meetings tend to be a little more acerbic because, as the accountable body, we are the recipients of complaints about the chief inspector. It would be strange if the Committee held the chief inspector to account, but did not press him or her hard on those complaints. Anyone who reads the Select Committee report of the previous Session will know that it ranged across a number of issues and the agenda wrote itself. Those issues included, for example, Durham education authority and the Commission for Racial Equality. I want to put the matter into context. We have a responsible job to do and the atmosphere at our autumn meetings tends to be more negative.
We are discussing an interesting innovation that has worked. I hope that any coverage of our debate will examine not only the way in which the inspectorate process is working and its achievements, but the remarkable efforts that are being made by teachers, heads, governors and parents throughout the country. They are working together in teams and as stakeholders in education in their communities, and have achieved tremendous benefits for children. That must be acknowledged. We must thank Ofsted. I am saying nice things about it, but it could not make those reports unless real change had taken place at the chalk face. People are working hard to get things right.
Some of my more critical comments about Ofsted should be looked at in context. Before I became Chairman, the Select Committee wanted a board to be established to which Ofsted would have been directly accountable. The work on that was done before my chairmanship—I was not involved in it—but I concur with that view. The Government did not accept that there should be an independent board. The arguments are on the record and I do not intend to dwell on that matter today. However, there is accountability, it is novel and it seems to be working. Many of my colleagues believe that a board would make it even more effective and that is on the record.
I want to issue some warnings. Ofsted is growing very fast. The number of people employed by Ofsted has been relatively small, but Governments are always keen to make organisations more effective, more holistic and more all-encompassing. I do not disagree with that, but it is the nature of the beast that the bureaucracy of Ofsted will increase. It is growing fast and will consolidate into a much larger organisation.
There are always dangers when organisations get bigger and there are more people to manage. Much excellent leadership and management will be needed for
126WH
Ofsted to remain as effective as it has been. The Select Committee will keep hard at it over the coming months. There will be a transition from a modest-sized bureaucracy to a much larger one. We all know the reasons—the extension of the remit to further education and to pre-school and nursery education. That is a new responsibility, but it is cause for concern. Bureaucracies must be watched extremely carefully. We shall watch Ofsted to ensure but it is managed properly.
There is a further issue. I was reading the National Union of Teachers briefing for this debate before I came in. I am acquiring a reputation for not always agreeing with the teaching unions' views on such subjects as Ofsted, although I do not disagree with them all the time. That is a healthy relationship for a Chairman of the Select Committee. The teaching unions believe that schools may go through a rough period when trying to get things right.
Ofsted was set up nine years ago, when 30 per cent. of lessons in primary education and 20 per cent. in secondary education were seen to be unsatisfactory or poor. Now, much higher standards have been achieved. A voice is calling for lighter inspections, a softer touch and a more co-operative attitude. I have been part of that voice, which says that one must ensure that inspection produces a range of ways of making the school better. The worst thing that can happen to a school is to get a bad Ofsted report, to be left demoralised and to have to pick up the pieces. We all know that a school in special measures, for example, is often left literally picking up the pieces, unable to recruit new staff or raise teachers' and governors' self-esteem.
I want to see much more—the change is already taking place—of Ofsted having a discourse with the teachers, the head, the parents and the governors and saying "You have a poorer evaluation than we would like, but you must now work with us to address certain problems." Going back to the private sector parallel, I know of no well-managed organisation that benefits from only negative criticism. Therefore, I hope that, wearing one hat, Ofsted will be frank, honest, impartial and independent, but that, wearing another, it will make a series of recommendations for turning the school around and will quintessentially improve the quality of the education that h. delivered to pupils.
I do not, however, want Ofsted to become flabby; I want to have my cake and eat it. I do not want people throughout the country to say "We can all relax now. Ofsted is becoming a softer touch." I want people to be concerned about Ofsted and to know that they must do well to get a good Ofsted report, so that they will be left with a positive feel if an inspection is made and things are found to be less good than they might be. I want the relationship to be positive. I think that I can have my cake and eat it. I do not want Ofsted to be demonic, so that people are frightened and stressed.
One of the best ways in which to evaluate Ofsted is to go out to the counts y and to talk to teachers about it. The Select Committee has a wonderful reputation, not only for taking written and oral evidence, but for visiting schools, colleges and universities to find out, as far as possible, what it feels like to be on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection.
When working on our recent report on the early years—birth to eight years of age—we visited the constituencies of the hon. Member for Oxford, West

127WH

and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). We talked to teachers, at times sitting on extremely small chairs, trying to evaluate the feeling in the school. Not one teacher or head wanted to end Ofsted inspections. A 40year-old woman said that it was the most stressful experience in her life, but no one wanted to stop such inspections. The balance that we want to achieve will keep on driving up standards and the quality of education for our children, and at the same time form a more positive and co-operative relationship between the inspectorate and schools. That is already happening. Some excellent changes have been made.
Most of the debate will be about our reports. In a couple of weeks, we shall meet the new chief inspector. Much of the two reports before us today are a bit old hat, because they were drafted a long time ago. We thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for her reaction to our most recent report. We are always pleased, as a Select Committee, when we have a couple of wins. We came up with ideas that were good common sense, and the Minister seemed to agree that we had taken some positive steps.
I shall cite an example of how well the relationship is working. Given the agreement between Durham education authority and Ofsted, we thought that the independent adjudicator would not l e as independent as we would like. She was looking into a complaint about the chief inspector who had appointed her. We thought that that was a bit rum and suggested that the Secretary of State should appoint the adjudicator. I am delighted that the Minister agreed.
The relationship between parliamentary accountability and the machinery of government exemplifies how we can make our reports more effective. I ask the Minister to tell her colleagues that we are producing other reports. We hope for even more significant wins as a result of our early years report, the report into access to higher education and the report on retention in higher education. If such a relationship can blossom and we receive positive reactions to our reports, we shall be only too pleased.
My job in introducing the debate is to flag up the issues and to set the debate in a general context for colleagues to weigh in with their comments. Several other concerns in the reports have not produced as much reaction from the Minister, or from the inspectorate, as we would like. Certain areas have sometimes received short shrift from the chief inspector.
The Select Committee has been concerned about the quality of supply teachers for some time. On the basis of conversations with teachers, parents and pupils, nothing is more disruptive to a child's education than having a supply teacher who does not know what point has been reached in the curriculum or the level of the class. Such teachers do not know how to pick up the pieces. We were keen that Ofsted should look much more carefully at supply teaching, and the quality and training of supply teachers. The Minister gave us a reasonable response on the matter. When the new chief inspector appears before the Select Committee in a couple of weeks, we will ask the same questions again.
Some of the issues flagged up by the Select Committee were regarded by the previous chief inspector as not really his business or too difficult t o address within the
128WH
inspection system. The Select Committee is probing whether the inspectorate can deal more sensitively with issues such as supply teaching and bullying. Over the past year, several reports have been published which show how disruptive bullying is to the quality of education in a school. When considering the good management of a school, it is possible to ensure a framework for reporting bullying and best practice in dealing with bullying, and a way in which bullying can be tackled positively and proactively. I do not agree with the former chief inspector who said, more or less, that the problem was too difficult to tackle effectively. The Select Committee will revisit that issue with the new chief inspector.
Before I became Chairman, its members went on away-days—or a couple of days away—in an Oxford college. I missed that nice experience.
Mr. John Hayes: It was when the Select Committee was chaired by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge).
Mr. Sheerman: Yes, it was chaired by my hon. Friend, who is now a Minister. In the past, Select Committee reports were of a piece. In an age in which there are dozens of consultancies, think tanks, special groups, working parties and commissions, however, the Select Committee is an unusual—I hesitate to say Frankenstein-type—creature. Things are done in a traditional way. We decide on the terms of reference, invite oral evidence—everyone wants to take oral evidence and have their chance to be on television—and make visits. We then ensure, with the help of special advisers, that we produce as good a report as possible.
Often, that is as far as it goes—it is a cathartic experience. We produce a report, hand it to the Minister and that is it. We walk away from it and it can gather dust. The report that came out of the away-days concluded that that was not good enough. If Select Committees are to be an effective part of the parliamentary process, which many of us are trying and working hard to modernise, they must be more rigorous and on-going. The relationship with Ofsted is part of that. It is not going to go away.
We produce a report, give it to the Minister and the Minister is supposed to respond within a certain time. We then have a debate in Westminster Hall. That, I tell the Minister and the chief inspector of Ofsted, is not the end of the matter. As long as I am Chairman of the Select Committee, I intend to keep returning to issues and pushing forward the elements involved. If a report is good, it is good not only for today but for many months and years to come. A Select Committee should return to themes. That is good advice. I voiced that view in the Liaison Committee, the committee of Select Committee Chairmen, and it is percolating through the thoughts of most Committee Chairmen and members. That is most important.
Our relationship with Ofsted is unique for a Select Committee, as I said earlier. It is good and it will get better if we press those themes until we are satisfied.

129WH
I hope that, in this debate, which takes place just before an interesting short parliamentary break, we shall benefit from my colleagues' participation. As it is such a unique occasion, with Parliament not sitting next week, I hope that we shall receive enormous exposure in the press on our Select Committee and its relationship with Ofsted.
We should not be over-content or feel that we have done the job, but the relationship between Ofsted and the improvement in schools has been positive. We intend as a Select Committee to play our part in ensuring that Ofsted remains independent, rigorous and fair and that we do not mistake Ofsted for something that it is not. Ofsted does not energise the process on the ground. It can play a part in that process, but parents, pupils and, above all, teachers and heads lead that process. I hope that some of my colleagues will join me in saluting the progress that has been made.
3.2 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, on having persuaded the Liaison Committee to secure this important debate this afternoon. It is perhaps the last opportunity that we shall have to debate Ofsted's role before the election. I appreciate his warm remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, set in process the new inspectorate system. We would do well to remind ourselves why my right hon. and learned Friend felt it necessary to introduce an independent inspectorate.
The effect and work of Ofsted has borne out the deep anxiety that was expressed that the old inspection system took almost too kind an approach to schools and that there was too great a reluctance to level criticism where it was needed. The lesson of Ofsted's success is that, if we are not prepared to criticise, we shall find it almost impossible to improve.
I hope that we shall have a constructive and informed debate and that I shall not be accused of playing a party political card merely because I level significant criticisms of how matters are proceeding. Without such criticism it is hard to imagine how our school system can improve. That is not to gainsay the fantastic work done by the vast majority of teachers and the many schools that make a success of the lives of children who attend them.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield on what he called the excellent leadership and management that Ofsted has shown. During the tenure of the previous chief inspector in particular, we sometimes wondered whether the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends saw the role of the chief inspector in that light, so it is encouraging to hear that endorsement today. If the new chief inspector can do as well as the previous one, Ofsted will be fortunate indeed. That is not to say that we should hesitate to level criticism against Ofsted itself—our report did so.
This is a fast-moving scene and, after our reports were issued, we received the Green Paper "Schools: Building on Success" and, in the last week, Ofsted's latest annual report, to which it is proper for us to refer, so that our
130WH
debate is entirely relevant and up to date. It is worrying that on page 20 of Ofsted's new report, the new chief inspector tells us:
"raising standards is at risk",
because there has been a constant trend of rising standards in our schools. We should be concerned with why he thinks that standards are at risk. He identifies three problems. The first is what he calls
"the adverse impact of high staff turnover",
Secondly, he refers to
"widespread use of temporary teachers",
and thirdly, he refers to
"a poor match between teachers' qualifications and the subjects taught".
The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to behaviour in the classroom. The chief inspector alerts us to that by saying:
"This year, for the first time in recent years, inspectors report increasing levels of poor behaviour."
Clearly, there is a link between the problems in teaching—the high turnover, temporary teachers coming in and out of class—and children's behaviour, on which the chief inspector says:
"pupils' behaviour is a times inconsistent".
In other words, the teachers whom the pupils know, and who know the pupils, can contain the problem and excite their interest but the high turnover and greater emphasis on the use of temporary staff mean that people with knowledge of the behaviour and inclinations of the pupils are not present throughout the school day. That is why matters get out of hand.
Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that elsewhere in the report, the chief inspector points out that only one in 50 primary schools has unacceptable behaviour problems and notes tremendous progress, especially in the primary sector, on behaviour issues?
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for anticipating my net point. I was going to say that behavioural problems in children tend to exhibit themselves far more as they go through adolescence and in secondary school. It may be possible to contain problems in a primary school despite staff turnover, but in secondary school—when all the other pressures, excitements and interests of life bear down on children—that becomes much harder.
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend may want to alert the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) to the section of the report that states that one of the chief problems of disruptive behaviour occurs when children first enter secondary education. It is in that changeover period that many problems begin. The chief inspector's report mentions that. My hon. Friend is right to deal with that issue. Of course, on average, one in 12 schools suffers from severe disruption problems.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful intervention. Although we should congratulate primary schools on what is, in broad terms, a healthy report—an overview—from Ofsted, not everything in the gal den is rosy. Writing is an area of

131WH
particular disappointment—scores have improved by only 1 per cent. despite all the effort put into booster classes and other initiatives. That opens another area of debate. When testing schools, Ofsted has a clear eye on the results of tests—key stage tests, GCSEs and A-levels. Ofsted regards them as an important external measure of the subjective reading that it takes in the classroom when it visits a school.
Laudable though the improvement that Ofsted has traced through key stage test results is, people worry that some of it may be due to an increasing pressure on teachers to teach to the test, rather than encourage the spirit of learning and develop the child's broader ability. It is far harder to teach for the writing test than for the skills of spelling or adding up. We should applaud what schools are achieving in difficult circumstances, but remain alert to the risk that Ofsted and the testing system may become a new version of the self-congratulating system that did so little to help schools in the years before that body was created.
Ofsted, of course, represented simply one step on a long march. The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggested that, if a private sector company showed the improved performance that schools have recently shown, it would be a star company. He is right to remind us that the golden legacy in education left by the previous Government was matched by a golden legacy in the private sector—the remarkable changes made in those areas coincided and complemented each other. Unemployment is low today because increasing numbers of school leavers are equipped and job ready for the world of work that awaits them.
Some long-term trends show that the Government's best efforts may not have been truly effective.
Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in 1994–95, one in five lessons was considered unsatisfactory? Was that part of the previous Government's golden legacy?
Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Lady is right to point out that, since that date, the number of unsatisfactory lessons has steadily decreased. The chief inspector tells us in his latest report that one in five lessons was unsatisfactory in 1994–95, but that the proportion has declined steadily each subsequent year. Teaching is now unsatisfactory in only about one in 20 lessons. The proportion of good or better teachers increased from about 40 to 60 per cent. That shows that the introduction of Ofsted had a dynamic effect on the performance of our schools, but that did not occur in isolation: the improvement also depended on the long struggle to establish an effective national curriculum and testing system for various ages and to create several ways in which to measure performance. As a result of that system, we know more about the performance of individual pupils and schools than is known in any other country.
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris)indicated assent.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister nods in agreement. I regard that knowledge as a good thing, provided that the time and effort spent in collecting the information
132WH
does not impede teaching, the broader development of the child or the broader success of the schools. We should not become fixated on self-created targets for performance that do not accurately measure what is happening on the ground.
Before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), I was about to refer to some long-term trends. Information is given at the back of the latest reports that was given in previous reports, which allows us to contrast the changes that have taken place. The reduction in class sizes in primary schools in the first few years was a big initiative of the new Government. Ofsted has told us that it would be willing to consider the cost-effectiveness of several of the Government's programmes and it is important that it should do that in this case. I do not gainsay the immense advantages to individual schools of the money that they received as a result of the class size reduction initiative. However, the original cost was given as £100 million in 1997. My latest information is that it now costs more than £600 million. We are entitled to know how the additional teaching in the first three years has affected performance.
Significantly, secondary schools have improved more in the relevant period than primary schools. For instance, a 24-point improvement was made in year 11 between 1993–94 and 2000. A 21-point improvement in year 3 was made in a similar period. I do not suggest that that is more than a crude measure of what Ofsted should examine, but I hope that the effectiveness of what is being done will be studied, bearing in mind that a dislocation cost, as well as a financial cost, resulted from the class size programme in its first three years. Some siblings could not attend the same school and some schools had to cut numbers, despite being popular. Above all, the fact that the programme acted as a magnet to draw more teachers from training colleges into primary schools has contributed to the current acute scarcity of secondary school teachers.
There has been a price to pay for the initiative. I asked the permanent secretary whether he thought that it was a price worth paying and he seemed to imply that it was, but my preference is that Ofsted should examine the issue. I look forward to its doing so.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that when the former chief inspector of schools gave evidence to the Select Committee on 15 March 2000, he said in answer to a question from the Chairman that, when Ofsted had examined the correlation between class size and standards of pupil achievement, there was
"a clear correlation with key stage 1 and we welcomed the Government's investment in that particular stage after the election."
Mr. St. Aubyn: I would be the first to accept that, all other things being equal, smaller class sizes are highly desirable. The former chief inspector also qualified his remark by saying that, of course, the quality of teaching is important. We would all agree that a larger class taught by an excellent teacher would probably make more progress than a smaller class taught by a less experienced, less effective teacher. That is common sense.

133WH
The success of the Government's programme and the time frame in which they decided to implement it must be gauged against all the issues that I have identified. We must not merely rely on the presumption that smaller class sizes are always better, whatever the cost to the rest of the system.
Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of excellent teachers and prefaced his remarks by paying tribute to them. Does he argue, as I would, that labelling a group of schools as bog standard implies that the teachers in those schools—who, everyone would agree, are the ones who create the standardsmare bog standard too? Is that good for the morale of teachers and an appropriate comment for Ministers, or even Prime Ministers, to make?
Mr. St. Aubyn: It was one of the most unfortunate remarks that has yet issued from No. 10 Downing street. I should have thought that the school standards unit in Downing street would be more aware than anyone that four categories of schools can be identified in the present context. They are beacon schools, which are the best in the system, good schools, coasting schools and failing schools.
Valerie Davey: Under-achieving.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Indeed, one might describe them as under-achieving schools. There is such a school in my constituency and we have shown how much more it is able to achieve under a new system of management. I hope to speak about that if I have time.
The Prime Minister's remarks were intended to flag up a document, "Schools: Building on Success", which would be better described as the mea culpa of the Government. It begins with a confession that
"comprehensives were mostly established…on a model which…often allowed little scope for schools to develop a distinctive character and mission."
I wish that the Government had recognised that when they first took office rather than after four years.
We struggled during the Government's first year to explain that each grant-maintained school had a distinctive character. We were perplexed that the Government should contemplate grouping schools into action zones that might be thought of as grant maintained and we were puzzled that they were not prepared to contemplate the continued existence of the grant-maintained schools themselves. They were prepared to promote the Conservative concept of specialist schools and I congratulate the Minister on his wholehearted conversion to that cause. However, they were not prepared to accept that grant-maintained schools were already specialist schools and that their more effective use of resources meant that they already had the additional funding per pupil for which specialist schools now have to apply one by one. I would welcome it if the Minister were now looking for a light-touch inspection regime. That would be a mark of how many schools have already reached the threshold. Indeed, fewer schools are not making the grade.
134WH
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out that the Prime Minister offended a great many people when he allowed that phrase to slip our. No school can be called a bog standard comprehensive. We have an excellent system of education in comprehensive schools, and when it is applied properly and if those schools have a proper broad intake of pupils, they can be among the best in the country.
Of those comprehensive schools promoted during the past 20 years, the most outstanding have been city technology colleges. I am delighted that the Government have row taken on board the success of the city technology college model. If more are created, they will be called city academies, but I do not wish a change in nomenclature to prevent another wholehearted conversion to the ideas put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and the other eminent Conservative Secretaries of State who presided over that epic period of radical change in how our schools are run.
As regards the debate on standards versus structures, we need to keep the role of Ofsted clearly in mind. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that Ofsted cannot energise schools. I am not sure that I entirely agree. It can energise schools dramatically when inspecting them, but the effect is short lived. Ofsted inspectors cannot implement the changes that they have identified as being necessary. What is encouraging about the latest report is that many schools take up Ofsted's recommendations. When Ofsted makes second inspections, it often reports that schools have implemented most or even all of the recommendations made on the first visit. It would be wrong to say that Ofsted does not energise schools, but it cannot be a fully fledged support system. I raised that matter with the previous chief inspector when he was preparing the report that we are considering. I am sorry to say that he did not see things as I did. We shall have to wait to see who was right.
Should the opportunity arise, I look forward to questioning the new chief inspector about leadership. We should consider some of the initiatives suggested by the Government. For instance, we learn on page 64 of the new report that of the eight fresh start schools inspected, only three were making satisfactory progress. The Minister may wish to correct me, but that seems to imply that the majority of fresh start schools are not succeeding. The initiative is not enough, which comes as no surprise to me.
On education action zones, the report says:
"some useful although not ground-breaking developments were being pursued…Almost all the initial zones' plans were too ambitious."
The initiative is noble, but it has not succeeded.
The Government said that they wanted standards, not structures, but structures turn out to be important. Finding the right structure to correct deficiencies in failing schools is important in making them successful. That is why I will blow the trumpet—I hope that I will be forgiven for doing so—of my education authority in Surrey, as it has folic wed a different path in the teeth of opposition from the Secretary of State. It has brought in a private-sector company to run a state school.

135WH
No one would think that such a proposal would generate a great deal of popular support. The local population, especially parents and teachers, treated the initial idea with great hesitancy three years ago. However, a striking mark of the success of the project from day one was the fact that, by the time that the company had been chosen in co-operation with the teachers and parents, nine out of 10 of those people voted in favour of the decision taken by the education authority. Since then, we have seen a transformation in the school in Guildford. Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I would not say that Guildford was an inner-city area, but the school is in the least prosperous part of town. The local housing estate has unemployment of 7 per cent. and there are problems of literacy and social breakdown.
Mr. Sheerman: I meant my comment humorously, as I remember that the hon. Gentleman described part of his constituency as being an inner-city area once at Prime Minister's questions. I was reminding him of that.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. If I said that, it must have been a humorous comment as well. We aspired to city status, but that is another story.
We have learned some lessons. For example, we know that an education authority is not a good vehicle for turning failing schools around. An education authority has too broad a focus and too many competing interests, especially its responsibility to champion many schools in the same area. It cannot champion a failing school at the expense of others. An outsider that presents a new brand image for a school—a new future for it—can champion it consistently. The success of the school is due to a magnificent new head, investment and other factors, but they have had to be co-ordinated by a company with a clear benchmark for and expectation of performance. That has been essential in dealing with the challenges and difficulties posed by the children and their homes.
I am glad that the Government appear to be converted on the issue. They should be reminded that they did not think of it. On Monday, David Blunkett must have been in a dream world when he said on "Newsnight" that he had had to boar down on Surrey county council to effect the change. I received letters from him two or three years ago saying that he would try to prevent the project. I am glad that his attempts to frustrate the initiative failed and that he is now big enough to see that he should take it on board, as it has been such a success. However, he should pause before he tries to claim it as his idea in the first place.
What role is left for local education authorities? They used to carry out inspections, but there is now an independent inspectorate and a national curriculum and, increasingly, other providers of services give a range of support to schools. The point is moot, as the defence of the LEAs—I look forward to hearing those who believe in LEAs to respond—is that they still do vital work, especially in special educational needs. That is why the evidence in that category from Ofsted is worrying. In the latest report, LEAs' support for special educational needs comes in for a pasting by the chief inspector. Ofsted found that 45 pf r cent. of the LEAs inspected had an unsatisfactory special educational
136WH
needs strategy. Furthermore, it found that 35 per cent.—more than one in three—of those inspected provided poor or unsatisfactory value for money in their provision for special educational needs. Ofsted tells us that education authorities are failing in the one area where those authorities still have a critical role. I refer to page 86 of the latest report, for those who have it. Ofsted is telling us that LEAs are not doing the job.
The challenge for the next Government—the Conservatives look forward to taking it up—is to find a new way to deliver high quality special educational needs services without being hung up by the fact that they are at present delivered by LEAs. The Conservative free schools policy, which envisages a gradual minimisation of the role of LEAs, will work better if we can provide alternative structures for the delivery of special educational needs in the free schools. Given that the Government, in their latest Green Paper, go half way towards adopting the free schools model, the Minister should tackle that issue this afternoon.
If I had more time, I would deal with child care inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted the concerns of Conservative Members on the issue in the Standing Committee debates on the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000. Many of us feel that it may be a great mistake for Ofsted to expand its role into that rather different field. Ofsted has succeeded because it is focused. It will now be asked to move into an entirely new area of inspection—early years—in which the number of establishments that it will be required to inspect will be far greater than that which it is required to inspect at present. In an early years setting, inspection will not be as thorough as in a typical school. Nevertheless, the scale on which Ofsted is becoming involved, and its new contractual relationship with local education authority employees in the field as distinct from its independent position in the field of school inspections, will confuse the organisation's approach.
It would probably have been better if, while recognising the importance of the transition from early years to school, the Government, like most of the Governments that our Committee visited, had recognised that early years are not just about education—they are about child development. Those are separate matters and I look forward to the Minister's comments on the issue. When our Committee went to Denmark last May, we were particularly struck by the ethos there. The pedagogic tradition of the early years sector was distinct from the teaching tradition in schools.
To ask Ofsted to undertake both roles could produce flaws in the system. We must bear in mind that part of Ofsted's effectiveness derives from the consistency of its performance and of its evidence taking. No institution is perfect and, as the Chairman of our Committee said, we have criticised Ofsted on individual cases in which inspectors have not been up to the mark. However, I am concerned that if Ofsted's role is broadened to take in so many early years settings, consistency will suffer and the reputation of Ofsted in school inspection will suffer. Ofsted's effectiveness would suffer if there were shortcomings in the inspection process for the early years.

137WH
Finally, we must attend to Ofsted's responsibilities to Parliament. The Committee has struggled to hold Ofsted to account. The current structure is a mish-mash, with its dotted line responsibility to the chief inspector and to 10 Downing street, its appointment by the Crown and the reporting lines to the Secretary of State. Ultimately, however, when people are questioned about it, they say, "He must respond to the Select Committee." We have been well served by the quality of chief inspectors and the organisation but it is vital, particularly in view of the hurdles that Ofsted now faces following the expansion of its role, that the Government should look again at its corporate structure.
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. I did not wish to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, but he referred to the Secretary of State by his name rather than by his title or his constituency. I remind hon. Members that the convention of the House is that we refer to other hon. Members either by their official title or by their constituency name.
3.35 pm
Valerie Davey: I want to refer to three areas as they apply to Ofsted: accountability, following the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn); credibility; and respect.
I welcome this debate. The Committee's last recommendation was that we should have such a debate in Westminster Hall, and I hope that this will be the first of a series, so that more hon. Members can take part. It is unfortunate that this first major debate on Ofsted should occur on a day when few hon. Members are present—almost all those here are members of the Select Committee—but I trust that on future occasions others will participate.
This debate forms part of our apparent on-going accountability for Ofsted, which I want to split into two or three areas. First, there is the totality of Ofsted's work. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford, but on this occasion I agree entirely. The extension of Ofsted's work gives it a huge remit—early years education in all its forms, primary and secondary schools, 16-plus and the college sector, teacher training and local education authorities. It is a daunting task for the Select Committee to have to cover such a large area year by year. The Committee is also responsible for holding to account the chief inspector. The Committee was given that remit, publicly at least, by the previous chief inspector. The difficulty of carrying out that responsibility became clear at the sitting on 1 November last year, when the Committee realised that it could comment or criticise, but that any enforcement of its comments would be without answer. If the Committee is to hold Ofsted and the chief inspector to account, there must be, with the Department's help, a clearer line of accountability and it must be given greater resources.
One area of accountability that has not been mentioned is Ofsted's value for money. Having undergone an expensive Ofsted inspection, many schools have said, "Wouldn't it have been better to have given us the money?" They would say that, wouldn't they? Who is monitoring whether the state funding for
138WH
Ofsted—this monolithic creature that we are creating—is well spent on raising standards? Although the Committee applauds Ofsted's work generally, who has done the research to show that that kind of inspection and delivery provides value for money? I know that, in part, that is the responsibility of the Audit Commission, but it is also the Select Committee's responsibility; given that, the Committee needs to be given specialist support, which it does not yet have.
There is a National Union of Teachers briefing, of which I have not had a copy. but I should declare my interest as a member of the NUT. All teachers, lecturers and carers of young children are concerned about credibility. Like the Minister, I welcome the appointment, in response to our report, of Maggie Smith to the early years Ofsted team. Given her worthy background in early years work, she would appear to be a good choice. However, we need reassurance that those involved form a credible, professional team of people, particularly given that there has been reason to question the many independent private sector Ofsted teams.
Reference has been made to the process having energised schools, but on occasion, it has exhausted them. We need to show professionalism and practise self-assessment and self-inspection, so that we can provide the necessary encouragement and improve the way in which schools and local education authorities are assessed. That theme, on which I have often concentrated, is the long-term future for the entire inspection system. We have changed the way in which Ofsted inspects on return visits to schools that need them most. The new structure is clearly welcome, but as has been said, it is not Ofsted's role to be a constant presence providing long-term support. Each school should self-inspect, and I hope that encouragement of such a system under pins Ofsted's work at every level.
Credibility is crucial but so is respect, and respect must be mutual. Ofsted must respect the teaching profession and, of course, the children themselves. In that regard we need to build trust, and although there have been clear examples of a breakdown of trust, Ofsted has done a great deal to rebuild it. Because of the more laid-back—by which I mean relaxed, positive and reassuring—approach to inspection, teachers are beginning to realise that there is a life beyond Ofsted that is purposeful, and which hopefully will be enhanced by the experience of an Ofsted inspection.
That brings me almost full circle. In terms of accountability, there are the Durhams of this world. although I do not want to discuss that example in detail. Let us consider the two examples that have been brought to our attention: a disgruntled and completely disillusioned LEA, and an organisation such as the Commission for Racial Equality. If, having participated in the complaints procedure, such a body remains dissatisfied, its last resort is the House of Commons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the Minister's response was generally positive and has enabled on-going dialogue. According to the Government's response to the second report, because it was mentioned in the House of Lords and debated in the House of Commons, Durham county council's case
"therefore confirms that Ofsted is accountable to Parliament".

139WH
However, that seems a non sequitur. Durham's case was also discussed by our Committee, but Durham nevertheless felt that Ofsted did not give it a fair and just hearing.
The House of Lords is the final court of appeal, but I do not believe that the Committee is the final court of appeal for individual cases. What must bodies such as Durham county council and the Commission for Racial Equality do to establish a right of appeal and somewhere justifiably to take their case? I would maintain that that is not the role of the Committee.
We have tried desperately not to use individual cases, even when members of the Committee have had detailed cases brought to their attention, because individual cases make bad law. We are not here to justify an individual case or cause; we are here to examine a broad remit, which I trust will be the case in the future. That examination relates to accountability and how individuals can seek justice.
Last but not least, I want to bring a personal touch to the debate. Her Majesty's inspectorate, Ofsted and the many agencies that have sprung up to give advice to local education authorities and schools drain many excellent teachers from the system. However, we could put those quality teachers back in schools. The credibility of the inspectorate would be increased by inspectors spending one year—I am prepared to argue the toss whether it should be one year in three or one year in four—teaching in schools. Some inspectors have been out of school for eight or nine years since Ofsted was set up, while Her Majesty's inspectors have been out of teaching for much longer. To be back teaching in the kind of school that they have seen as lacking in some way would increase their credibility and add to their professionalism. Although many regions are not experiencing a recruitment crisis, I suggest to the Minister that some areas would welcome the experience and professionalism of inspectors teaching in schools and colleges.
3.46 pm
Charlotte Atkins: I am delighted to take part in this important debate. I am also delighted to see the first annual report of the new chief inspector of schools, Mike Tomlinson. He has brought a welcome change of style to Ofsted. The report contains no snide attacks on teachers or suggestions that the goalposts have been moved and that tests are less rigorous. It celebrates particularly the success of our primary schools, where the great improvement in attainment in schools with the highest levels of disadvantage is especially pleasing. Clearly, the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools has narrowed. The report also recognises the positive role played by the Government's national literacy and numeracy strategies. I was delighted that it highlighted the fact that behaviour is unsatisfactory in only one in 50 primary schools.
There may still be problems with behaviour in secondary schools, but in my experience as a governor of a primary school, the seeds of poor behaviour are often sown when children—especially boys—are seven or eight years old. Having sat through many lessons, I know that learning flies out the window when teachers are engaged in sorting our rows, squabbles and fights.
140WH
The advancement in primary school behaviour provides a great foundation for improving behaviour throughout the school system.
The Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment has always stressed the need for the observations of the chief inspector of schools to be based on the evidence of inspections, which is something that Mike Tomlinson has done. His commentary at the front of the report is timely. In 1994–95 teaching was unsatisfactory in one in five lessons; the figure is now one in 20 lessons, which is a tremendous achievement in anybody's book. The proportion of good or better teaching has increased from about 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. over the same period. That is marvellous. It is tremendous for pupils, teachers and parents.
Those significant improvements are, rightly, attributed to the hard work and dedication of head teachers and teachers, ably supported by local education authorities, governors and parents. Improvements in teaching, not surprisingly, have gone hand in hand with rising standards in pupil attainment at all levels of education and I was delighted to see the figures rehearsed. The proportion of 11-year-olds reaching the expected standard in maths increased from 57 per cent. to 75 per cent. in 2000, which is a staggering 18 per cent. increase in attainment. That percentage rise is mirrored in English. It is more difficult to achieve such an improvement in English, particularly written English, and it is a tremendous improvement.
The second round of inspections provides evidence for how the improvement was achieved. Schools have focused more sharply on raising standards by tackling the key issues for action identified in their first inspection. That comes down to good teaching and high-quality leadership. I can testify to the success of the primary school that has become the most improved primary school in London. I am proud to be a governor of that school and I was chair of the governors for six years before coming to the House. The improvement was the result of solid hard work and the support of the local education authority. I recognise and welcome the chief inspector's recognition of the role of LEAs, two of which I know: Lewisham and Staffordshire. LEAs are variable but they have a crucial role in acting decisively and supporting schools in difficulties. If a school is on its uppers, it is difficult for it to garner its personnel and financial resources, to give a clear lead and to pull itself up by the boot straps without outside support. Collaboration, pooling good ideas and even sharing innovative teachers are important.
My daugher's school—Westwood high at Leek in Staffordshire, which is not a bog standard comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination—has just seconded its deputy head to another school. He is doing a tremendous job in leading that school to improved performance.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Such intervention may help to turn schools around when they are in difficulty, but structural changes may also be needed if the turnaround is to be sustained. Surely the lesson to be learned from the

141WH
failure of, for example, the fresh start initiative, is that the flash-in-the-pan approach does not lead to consistent improvement in performance.
Charlotte Atkins: The lesson to be learned from the problems in fresh start schools is that it is impossible for individual schools to turn themselves around on their own. If they have the same pupils and, by and large, the same staff, head teachers alone, however brilliant, cannot be expected to transform the situation. The approach must be collaborative. If private sector initiatives work as islands, there is no cross-collaboration and the result is the damaging competition between schools that occurred under the previous Government. We do not have that now because we have partnership and collaboration, which I welcome.
The previous chief inspector's hostility to LEAs did nothing to encourage this partnership approach, which has replaced the previous damaging competitiveness. That partnership approach is demonstrated by specialist schools, which were set up by the previous Conservative Government, but are very different under Labour. I welcome the Secretary of State's recent encouragement of joint bids for specialist school status. That will be ideal for my constituency. We already know about the requirement of specialist schools to share their resources with the community and with other schools. It is not a winner-takes-all situation as it was under the previous Government. Clough Hall technology school in Kidsgrove in my constituency shares its resources with the community in Kidsgrove. It has after-school clubs and shares its resources with Maryhill school down the road. Such action has a tremendously important community spin-off.
I am delighted that Ofsted's latest report has highlighted that insufficient progress has been made in key stage 3. In much of Staffordshire, Moorlands there is a middle school system in which pupils move to the high school in year 9. In my experience—both personal and professional—that system can leave year 8 as a gap year, when pupils can mark time unless extreme care is taken. Many of them are bored and insufficiently challenged. Year 8 could be an exciting year for pupils. They could be encouraged to think beyond the horizons of obtaining a job at 17 years old, and to consider looking into further and higher education and planning for GCSEs. Collaborating with local universities and other institutions will ensure that pupils' aspirations are widened. Key stage 3 should be a good foundation for GCSEs. It should enthuse pupils, not bore them.
If we are to achieve the Government's ambitious target of opening up higher education to 50 per cent. of pupils, we need to start encouraging pupils early in years 7 and 8. They can then explore the opportunities of higher education, and the available Government financial support, rather than feel burdened by the idea of debt. They must consider in those early years how they can expand their life chances, not limit them. That would particularly help non-traditional students—those students whose parents did not attend university.
All hon. Members here today know that Ofsted has played a valuable role in providing independent external inspection of education services. When the Select
142WH
Committee produced its report on Ofsted in 1999, we recognised that, too. However, I share the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about accountability. I am delighted therefore that the Ofsted complaints adjudicator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than Ofsted. That will give him or her a truly independent role.
That will give an important message to schools such as Moorside high it Cellarhead in my constituency. Its Ofsted report was poor in many ways. The school's standards had declined, but the report contained factual errors. There were several performance shortfalls and problems and the school went into special measures. The head teacher did not consider that Ofsted dealt with his justifiable complaints fairly. That created a problem for the school in accepting that certain matters had to be put right. The school's confidence in Ofsted was undermined. It then found it difficult to deal with the concerns of parents, staff and pupils. I am glad to report that, because the local education authority put in a temporary head who was subsequently replaced by a permanent head, the school is facing a renaissance. It is now on the up and up. In less than a year, it has started to make tremendous progress. I congratulate the LEA for helping to steer the school to success.
Any inspection system will be stressful for teachers. In April 1997, when my enthusiasms may have been elsewhere, I promised, as chair of governors at Kelvin Grove school in Lewisham, that I would be at the school for the Ofsted inspection, although my election agent thought that that was inappropriate. I became heavily involved in that inspection, which was very fair. It highlighted some of the problems in the school, and science was identified as a particular problem area. In the four years since the inspection, Kelvin Grove has become the most improved school in London, and the 10th most improved primary school in England. That demonstrates that if teachers have the right approach to Ofsted, they can draw lessons from it and ensure that the focus is not on teaching to test but on individual pupils, their potential and their ability to make progress. Personal concentration on individual pupils is the way forward.
The shorter notice of inspections, which we recommended in our report, will help to reduce the pressure on the school, teachers and heads. The shorter period during which a school can prepare for inspection will also ensure that over-enthusiasm for preparation, which so many schools told us about during our Ofsted report inquiry—one school produced several crates of paper, which Ofsted inspectors had to hire a car to take away—will be curbed. Schools will always be prepared for their inspection because they will use the Ofsted framework, which many people have praised as a useful self-evaluation tool. They will use that framework to ensure that they arc up to the mark, not just for the Ofsted inspection, but throughout the year, for the benefit of all their pupils.
Sometimes inspections can be marred by lack of coordination and liaison between the inspectorate team and the school management. That sometimes occurs because the inspectors are self-employed and do not operate from an office, I was pleased to see that in future the new early years inspectorate will be employed as opposed to self-employed. However, much concern has

143WH
been expressed about the fact that those inspectors will still be home-based rather than based in an office, which would facilitate effective team working. While we were conducting our inquiry we heard stories about inspectors meeting for the first time in the car park. I do not know whether those stories were true, but that is certainly the impression that some schools had. If we are to overcome the problem, we must consider whether inspectors should be employed rather than self-employed. I am pleased that at least early years inspectors will be employed, even if they are working from home. That issue should be revisited.
We should also consider the issue of pay and conditions. Currently, no one would move from being a head teacher to working for Ofsted as there would be no financial benefit in doing so. We became aware of concerns that inspectors had to take on the burden of too many inspections because of pay and conditions. Unless inspectors were retired, and therefore already had a pension or other retirement income, they might be tempted to take on too many inspections in order to make a decent living. That does not do justice to Ofsted. That issue must be considered if Ofsted is to deliver the quality service that we want for our education system. Ofsted inspectors must be properly employed, with appropriate pay and conditions, in order to provide an effective service to schools.
4.5 pm
Mr. Hilary BennI, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss the work of Ofsted. I praise the Select Committee for so tenaciously throwing the spotlight on that work and for producing such balanced reports. In essence, the debate hinges on getting the balance right in the inspection frame work. We must also disentangle the noise that has recently surrounded Ofsted and its work.
Like every hon. Member who has spoken today, I am unequivocally in favour of independent inspection, owing to my experience as a former local authority chair of education. I held that position in a London borough in 1986, during a period in which the local authority inspected its own schools but never published the reports. One of my first moves was to ensure that they were published, which was a small step in the right direction, and a necessary change. We would all acknowledge that, in those days, local education authorities had little incentive to admit that things were not going well, because that would have reflected on the close relationship of those authorities within the system.
Inspection, together with standard assessment tests and other new measures, has given us much more information about what pupils do in schools. The process has developed as a common thread of Government policy over the past 25 years. In 1976, Jim Callaghan made his famous Ruskin college speech about the secret garden of the curriculum If he had been asked at that time what percentage of lessons were of a satisfactory standard, he would have had to admit that he did not know, because—to continue the analogy—he had not investigated that particular flowerbed of the secret garden.
144WH
We can now demonstrate categorically that standards are rising for pupil achievement and the quality of teaching. I welcome the commentary contained in the chief inspector's annual report. Mike Tomlinson says:
"These significant improvements…have been achieved through the hard work and dedication of headteachers and teachers, supported by Local Education Authorities (LEAs), governors and parents—There is, therefore, much to celebrate in the trends in our education system. The great majority of parents are pleased with their children's education."
I say hear, hear to that—first because it recognises reality, praising head teachers and schools for their good work in the vast majority of cases and, secondly, because it makes the important point about parents' satisfaction. A great deal of evidence suggests that people give one view when asked about the state of education in general but another, more favourable view when asked specifically about the education received by their children. As the latter view is based on their actual experience, that is positive news.
I welcome the new style followed by the new chief inspector, which could be described as rigour without the provocation. The provocation of former times unquestionably, and unfortunately, tainted attitudes towards Ofsted. I support the Select Committee's comments on the role of encouragement and support in raising standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) said that inspection, and the shouldering of accountability that goes with it, is a painful process to undergo. In two months, every hon. Member will undergo his or her own form of inspection. In some cases it may be painful, or indeed terminal to parliamentary careers, but it is necessary. We must not lose sight of the fact that Ofsted itself must be subject to external evaluation. One of the Select Committee's most valuable contributions has been to begin to tease out issues surrounding that question. There is no doubt that the dialogue between the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues about precisely how Ofsted should be held properly to account should continue.
I have had two experiences of Ofsted inspections as the chair of a primary school governing body. As has been said, there is no doubt that the inspection in both cases was stressful, and anything that can be done to reduce that stress—shortening the duration and the other steps that the Government have taken—is to be encouraged. However, after both those inspections we sat down with the head and the staff and I asked: "On balance, was that a fair reflection of the school?" With one or two quibbles, on both occasions the head and the staff said, "Yes, it was a fair reflection." That is extremely significant, because it reflects what surveys tell us about the attitudes of heads and others to the inspections they have experienced: inspections may be stressful and difficult but in the end they describe the school as it is. That is clearly a strength of the system.
A criticism that I—and, I am sure, other hon. Members—have encountered is from head teachers, teachers and others who say, "Aha! It's accurate, but it doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know." We must acknowledge that that is true. One would hope that a good head teacher and good members of staff would see reflected in an external evaluation what they knew about their institution, but the crucial

145WH
importance of independent inspection is that it may tell those of us outside the school—parents and elected representatives—things that we did not already know. That is why the principle is right.
When I think back to my local authority days, there were schools in which, to be frank, head teachers were not up to the job. The local authority did not want to declare that fact publicly and used a variety of mechanisms to try to move them on, including encouraging them to take early retirement, and so on. However, during that time, children in those schools were getting less than a fair deal because the system found it difficult to acknowledge that things were not going well. The lesson is that in some cases—especially for schools in special measures—it is the external Ofsted inspection that brings schools face to face with their problems. That is not pleasant or easy, but sometimes an external stimulus is what makes the school sit up and say, "All is not well and we need to make progress." That self-awareness, encouraged by external inspection, is sometimes necessary.
That is not to say that improvements could not be made to the system; I shall mention one. The biggest weakness of the current system is what I describe as the inspect-and-go approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) talked about staff being left demoralised. In my experience, if people are told, "I've looked at what you're doing; a lot of it is good, but in these areas you could do better", the reaction is usually, "Please show me how." Once they have got over any initial disagreement and concern, they want to be shown how to do it. It is frustrating if a person says, "It's not up to scratch" and then disappears in a cloud of dust, leaving people unsure of where to get support and advice. Of course, local education authorities have an important role to play in providing post-inspection support, but I was interested to discover when I visited a high school in my constituency last year that it had paid money from its own funds to get an inspector to return to give precisely that post-inspectand-go advice. It found that arrangement most satisfactory.
I know that it is difficult to strike a balance so as to provide sufficient resources to perform inspections to cover all schools, but more needs to be done to bridge that post-inspection gap between the judgment—what inspectors have found— and practical, down to earth support for schools and teachers to act on that judgment.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sorry to have missed the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Does he recognise the potential for a conflict of interest in the role of an auditor of an operation who returns and is put in charge of putting matters right? Is there not something to be said for a system in which a group of people independently assess and identify problems and leave to the school the choice of who to introduce to help resolve those problems?
Mr. Benn: I do not believe that it is a question of asking the inspector to return and putting him or her in charge. Under the system, the head teacher and the governing body are in charge of dealing with issues
146WH
identified in an inspection. I feel that we have not struck the right balance and that schools need better support in tackling issues that have been identified.
All systems that are intended to measure and quantify process and output face a future challenge. In essence, that is where the debate began. We needed to introduce such systems for education because we lacked detailed information about developments. The challenge for schools, the examination system and the inspection framework is to establish precisely what we are trying to measure and whether we are absolutely confident that we are measuring the right factor.
Employers tell me, "Yes of course we want young people who have literacy and numeracy skills.", but they also say, "We are looking for young people who have curiosity, aspiration, creativity, imagination and flexibility"—in other words, the very qualities that in another age might have been described as essential to a rounded education. We need to reflect on how the system of qualifications and inspection captures those qualities, given what we know about their importance to young people's chances of finding a job on leaving school. We also need to consider the link—which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield has mentioned in debates on the Floor of the House—between that and the contribution that those qualities, combined with good standards of literacy and numeracy and a good basic education, make to our economic future as a nation.
I was forcefully reminded of that point during the second of the two Ofsted inspections that I experienced as the chair of a governing body. The inspectors felt that there were insufficient opportunities for awe and wonder in religious education. That left us slightly mystified. I believe that the head teacher said, "Well, I'm very sorry, but awe and wonder didn't happen to be on the curriculum that week." It is an interesting phrase to use, because part of what characterises excellent teaching and successful learning is the stimulation of awe and wonder, which can be combined with purposeful application and the acquisition of knowledge and new skills.
I am not suggesting that if we open the equivalent of this report in 10 years' time we shall see that a 10 per cent. increase in episodes of awe and wonder has been observed by Ofsted inspectors—
Ms Estelle Morris: Why not?
Mr. Benn: Well, perhaps I am being too cautious. I am merely observing that we must value what is important to us as parents and to our children and recognise that that may change over time and that the inspection framework will need to do so too as it evolves over the months and years ahead.
4.19 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has a long-standing interest in such issues, having been a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, and who would have been present had the debate been on another day, is unable to attend due to a long-standing constituency engagement.

147WH
We have had an interesting exchange of views. It started with a helpful, clear and characteristically balanced introduction from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. He set the scene for our debate. That was followed by a typically robust contribution from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). He made several points that need to be heard; both sides of the argument are needed to have a debate. Although I, like others, do riot agree with everything that he says, the hon. Gentleman certainly challenges us to justify our position.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) was excellent. She spoke about the possibility of more self-assessment during inspections. I share her view about the unsatisfactory interaction between Durham county council and Ofsted. Furthermore, I agree that it represents a failure of the system. People who feel hard done by should know that a fair overview can be taken and that an appeal system is in place.
I was disappointed that the Government did not respond more clearly to the fact that, regardless of the merits of the Durham case, which many of us thought were strong, we still cannot be certain of fairness. The Government say that they will ensure that the person who is to be taken on to hear appeals at Ofsted will be appointed from outside. It remains to be seen whether that will give sufficient distance in the working relationship.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West suggested that inspectors should spend some time teaching. It would not only benefit them, because they would be able to keep in touch with developments and new challenges, but give them more credibility and help them to tackle the relative shortage of experienced teachers. I hope to explore the feasibility of that excellent idea. I hope that the Minister will consider encouraging that, although not necessarily compelling it, and perhaps linking the prospects for promotion and reward in Ofsted to regular classroom experience and what might be seen as in-service training for inspectors.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) gave us the benefit of some sensible ideas to improve the employment arrangements of Ofsted staff. Many people recognise that the credibility and effectiveness of Ofsted depends on the competence and ability of its inspectors and of school inspectors generally. The way and settings in which they work are crucial.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who has continually impressed hon. Members during his time here, raised some important points about inspection that were hard to disagree with. He compared the inspection of schools with the inspection and the verdict that hon. Members receive at elections. That analogy was a little stretched, especially as the two fundamental factors for surviving that inspection—the size of one's majority and the performance of one's party are, for better or worse, mere important than one's own performance. To use the election result as a judgment of one's performance seems a little unfair on those of us in more marginal seats. However, the point that he makes is taken.
148WH
Many people ask whether the inspection is a traumatic experience for schools. Although perhaps it is not more damaging than the verdict and advice resulting from the inspection, they want to know whether the mode and style of inspection could be altered, so that the experience provided maximum value.
The stress of an impending inspection is not the only consideration. It would probably be the same regardless of the time scale. I suppose that giving less warning leaves people less time in which to feel stress, although it may accentuate it by concentrating it in a shorter time. Another fear is dislocation of time—which is not in the interests of the children—to prepare for the inspection. Something that is more continuous and perceived as less of an event might not give rise to the problems that we have heard about. That is why there is some validity in the arguments for an element of self-assessment and for inspection and quality assurance on the self-assessment mechanisms. Those points were well made in the briefing that many hon. Members received from the National Union of Teachers, which cited evidence to support its view.
The effect of putting schools in special measures should be examined by the Government. We have all heard stories of such schools being unable to retain staff, particularly in a market that suits those in search of employment, rather than those advertising posts. It is difficult to recruit teachers to schools in special measures because of prospective teachers' concern about the future of the school, the extra pressure on people working in such a stressful environment, and parents and pupils voting with their feet. Much funding is based on capitation, so a cycle of redundancy or lost posts is created. Together with difficulties in recruitment and retention, that makes matters very difficult.
I am the governor of a primary school in my constituency that was put into special measures following an inspection some time ago. Since then, there has been a huge turnover in teaching staff. Regular vacancies have had to be filled on an ad hoc basis, which is traumatic for the children, who rely on continuity, and for the rest of the staff, who must box and cox to fill posts. That makes it even more difficult for the school to emerge from special measures.
Schools that move out of special measures are almost certainly doing an incredible amount right and making a huge effort, because being in that position creates even more barriers to progress. We need to make abundant support available to overcome the problems. Another approach would be to change the way in which language that is used in that context: the implied threats and blame that, not unnaturally, arise stigmatise special measures.
I do not propose to discuss at length the rigour of inspections, because comments about that should be based on evidence and I have expressed concern in that regard in previous contributions on the subject. The school where I was involved was asked to set a target for the percentage of lessons that would be deemed satisfactory. That target was 85 per cent., based on a sample of about 20 lessons to be inspected over several days. That was the ball park figure. Each lesson represents 5 per cent. of the total. Any statistician knows that, when the sample is so small, 85 per cent., 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. are all much of a muchness. The

149WH
conclusions are determined by the random circumstances of one or two lessons, which might have been satisfactory on other days.
On one inspection visit, all 20 lessons could be considered satisfactory, but, on another, only 17 or 14 might be so considered. If one considers, for example, 200 lessons, the average percentage will be 97 per cent. Choosing a day at random could lead to the school being unfairly assessed as providing fewer satisfactory lessons than the requirement. Conversely, it could lead to the school being judged as providing a higher percentage of satisfactory lessons than it actually does. That brings into question the validity of conclusions based on inspections that do not use a big enough sample.
There is the issue of the effect that having an inspector in the lesson has, for better or for worse, on standards. If we are to stress, as we do, the importance of evidence, we must ensure that qualitative opinion is translated into quantitative targets. Scrutiny of the inspection process by someone competent in the validity of sample sizes would be useful.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands welcomes, as I do, the change of style that we have already seen, and that we are likely to continue to see, from the new chief inspector. She pointed out that the confrontational style of Mike Tomlinson's predecessor, Chris Woodhead, was a problem. I agree. However, for me, the main problem with the work of the previous chief inspector was not his style. It is important to put that on the record. I certainly had run-ins with him, but I did not mind robust exchanges in Select Committee, involving interrogation, questioning and an exchange of views. I never complained about what was said. However, I was, and still am, concerned about chief inspectors making comments that are not evidence-based, or straying too far into the role of party political commentators. Some of the views expressed by Mr. Woodhead were of the sort that one would expect to hear, and indeed one does hear, from people such as the hon. Member for Guildford. However, that is a politician's role, not a chief inspector's.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am interested to know which of the comments that I have made this afternoon, or on other occasions, have not been evidence-based. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he is happy for politicians such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stray into the educational world with their opinions, which turn out not to be based on any evidence?
Dr. Harris: There is a lot in that. Any criticism that I make of chief inspectors making comments that are not evidence-based should not be taken to imply that anyone else who makes comments—I am prepared to include myself in this—without adequate evidence should not be criticised. I am concentrating on the matter before us. In his comments, the chief inspector often strayed into areas on which he had no evidence or on which he might have had evidence, but made political pronouncements. Sometimes, he committed only one of the offences that I have described; sometimes, he committed both. I was not referring to any of the remarks by the hon. Member for Guildford
150WH
today. However, generally speaking, politicians on all sides will make remarks that are highly political in nature, with or with out the evidence to support them. We should not expect that from the chief inspector.
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Order. I hope that we will not stray too far into the realms of history. We are debating the report.
Dr. Harris: Not at all. Mr. Butterfill. Several parts of the report relate to the issues that I will now talk about. The first issue is A-level standards, the second is degree standards, the third is the role of LEAs and the fourth is section 28. My earlier remarks were simply to explain why I was concerned about the conduct and role of a previous chief inspector, who is criticised in the report that we are discussing alongside the Government's response.
I do not want to discuss the detail of our points on A-level standards, but it is worth pointing out that the Government's response to it is encouraging. The response points out that the job of checking those standards does not belong to Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, and that evidence suggests no wide-scale problem of declining standards. The response provides some clarity. We expect that more able students will be stretched by existing exams. That is separate from stating that A-level standards have declined, or making comments in the press that can be interpreted by any normal person as implying that. It is important that the inspectorate concentrates on its job, which, as hon. Members have said, is big enough without straying into other areas.
The same applies to degree standards, about which the previous chief inspector of schools made comments that implied concern. Those were then reported in the media. I welcome the Minister's response in her letter:
"The standards of degree courses, other than courses of teacher training, are outside the remit of HM Chief Inspector of Schools."
The terseness of that should send a message—I wish that it had been sent earlier—that the chief inspector's ability to comment on issues within his remit is extremely valuable and value but that he will have difficulty retaining credibility if he strays outside his remit without evidence.
The role of LEAs is party political. LEAs' standards, which are set out in the annual report for 1999–2000, are rightly within the remit of the chief inspector. Far too often, however, Chris Woodhead commented or implied that LEAs should not have had their current role. I do not believe that to be anything other than a political judgment, on which we can have a debate. We have now started that debate.
One of the values of an LEA is that it is democratically accountable. We often pray in aid such democratic accountability, when the LEA is not too badly capped, to add resources. Sometimes, as in Bristol recently, that leads to decreases in the amount of funding. That affects standards, as the chief inspector and inspectorate may discover when they go to Bristol. Democracy is a good thing and we must follow it in every way.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a chief inspector questioning the validity of such

151WH
structures leads others to question the independence of judgments by someone with a statutory responsibility to inspect those structures' effectiveness?
Dr. Harris: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has, characteristically, put the problem well.
The credibility of the inspectorate depends on evidence. That is why my final example of concern about the previous approach is homophobic bullying in schools. The chief inspector was significantly questioned on the issue, as the report shows. There is clear evidence of a problem and of section 28 perhaps impeding measures to tackle it. A bullying policy is well within the remit of the chief inspector, so before he makes public comments on its relevance, one would expect him to ask inspectors to ask schools about it, or to judge from his own experience. Information may not easily be volunteered about the subject, due to its sensitive nature.
It was extremely disappointing that the previous chief inspector made assertions about section 28 that were not based on evidence, that were directly ascribed in The Sunday Telegraph of all places, NA hen the issue was highly political, and that he could not substantiate when questioned later by the Committee. I t was fortunate that the timing of our interview with hint enabled that issue to be raised.
As regards the inspectorate's accountability, there will always be a temptation for anyone who holds such an important position to make pronouncements, based on the evidence and his independence, which some may feel go beyond what is appropriate. I would not want a chief inspector who thought that he had the evidence and that a matter was in his remit not to feel able to make such comments.
Because of the confrontational nature of the accountability mechanisms, which arise partly because the Select Committee has only limited opportunities to ask questions and only limited time within those opportunities, I worry whether the chief inspector's role, style and evidence will be adequately scrutinised or, conversely, whether, to avoid the problems caused by the nature of the exchanges between him and the Select Committee, the chief inspector will feel that what he says must be curtailed or trammelled. Neither situation is satisfactory. It is therefore with regret that I as a Select Committee member see that the Government have not accepted our recommendation to establish a board to supervise his role.
In their response, the Government say that there are arguments in favour and against s ach a board, as we accepted in a previous report. However, on further consideration, we judge from experience that the arguments are now in favour of establishing such a board. The Government simply say that there are arguments for and against and do not give a detailed explanation of their reasons for rejecting the recommendation. Nor is their vague reference to value for money enough to convince me, and I suspect other members of the Committee, that the point has been adequately evaluated.
Finally, I want to refer to the future of the school system. Something that is now in the public domain and which many hon. Members have commented on—it
152WH
relates to standards and the role of the chief inspector—is the Prime Minister's use of the term "bog standard" to refer to comprehensive schools generally.
Mr. Sheerman: The Prime Minister did not say that.
Dr. Harris: I believe that the Prime Minister's spokesman did, and the Government did not take the opportunity to apologise or to say that that was not what was meant. Not only was it a generalisation, but it was not clear on what evidence the view was based that comprehensives generally are bog standard. I can find no reference to the term in the report. Word searches on the internet will probably reassure me that it is not referred to by the chief inspector, or any chief inspector; usually, chief inspectors do not mince their words.
We can criticise, and have criticised, Ofsted and chief inspectors for making generalisations without evidence, but the Government should take this opportunity, the first that a Minister has had, to clarify what was meant by that comment. As the inspector has found—the hon. Member for Guildford made the point—schools are excellent, coasting or under-performing, rather than comprehensives or not comprehensives. It is impossible to make that generalisation. The Minister must take the opportunity not necessarily to make the apology called for by the National Association of Head Teachers, but to clarify what was meant and on what evidence it was based.
This has been a useful debate and I welcome much of the Government's response to our recent report, although I wish that they had done more. I look forward to Government responses to future reports that are even more helpful.
4.45 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I hope that my brief contribution will inspire awe and wonder, although it remains to be seen whether I shall succeed in either case. This has been a welcome debate to which many hon. Members have made useful contributions. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made a telling contribution about the need to ensure that the focus of schools is not too narrow. I think that it was Mark Twain who said that he never let schooling get in the way of his education, and although I would not go so far, it is certainly true that we need to develop in young people the flexibility, creativity and imagination that the hon. Gentleman describes. Although such qualities are hard to measure, schools should nevertheless try to engender them, and of course, good schools do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) spoke of the need to share good practice, and of the innovative and creative partnerships that stem from city technology colleges and similar schools. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) made a similar point and it is worth repeating. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) always brings an unusual and remarkable view to debates such as this, and although he got in a bit of a tangle I welcome his contribution. Minority views are not always popular but they have a place in our considerations.
It would churlish, probably inappropriate and certainly unwise to begin without making some concessions. First, I would be foolish not to

153WH
acknowledge that the reports suggest that standards have risen during the lifetime of this Government. Secondly, the Select Committee has played a helpful and useful role and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), always brings a profound interest to such debates. Thirdly, it must be said that the Government have bought a good deal of the Tory education agenda. The Government's current language—I am mindful in particular of the Green Paper, of which all hon. Members present will be conscious—is reminiscent of Conservative party thinking some 10 or 15 years ago. Some of the Government's comments might have been found in the education black papers that were condemned by the Labour party in the 1970s.
There has also been movement in terms of standards, raising expectations and delivering excellence. When a sinner comes to heaven, one must acknowledge that a significant road has been trod and obstacles overcome, but in debating Ofsted we must not assume that everything in the garden—be it a secret garden or not—is rosy. The reports have alerted us to significant problems with school standards that require amplification in this debate. There is welcome acknowledgement throughout the House that Ofsted does a good and valuable job. For the most part, the fears—some of which were reasonable and realistic—that pervaded schools in Ofsted's early days have begun to dilute.
Like the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, I was a member of an education committee in the mid-1980s and beyond. I remember well that any measurement of output was regarded as slightly bizarre; indeed, measurements that were independent, published, available, comprehensible and comparable were regarded as extraordinary. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have made a great deal of progress since then, and I know that the Minister shares that view and the concern that I and other hon. Members who have participated in the debate have expressed.
I want to draw attention to three aspects of the problem facing education, which are highlighted in the Ofsted report. First, there is concern over the morale and status of the teaching profession, which is reflected in the problem of recruitment and retention. Secondly, there is the Government's over-prescriptive approach, and thirdly, there is the quality of life in many schools. Denial is not useful, so we should not pretend that the problems are not profound or deny the specifics. I want to make a couple of points, and I shall mention them fleetingly. I realise that the Minister will not have time to respond to them in detail, but perhaps we can continue the debate on another occasion.
Specific issues have been raised about the teaching of religious education and information technology, the setting of homework, and the achievements of boys generally, especially in writing. Those issues are reflected in the tables in the first and second reports. It is interesting that in the context of both teaching quality and pupil achievement some of those subjects consistently and regularly appear at the bottom of the league table. There is also a problem with subjects such as history and geography, which because of the proper concentration on the basic skills of literacy and
154WH
numeracy, may receive lower priority in schools. We know that there are problems with recruitment in those subjects.
Mr. Tomlinson, the new chief inspector, refers to significant recruitment and retention problems and states:
"Most vacancies are eventually filled, but heads report that there are few good applicants, and sometimes few applicants at all, in an increasing range of subjects."
He also said that one consequence was that,
"for the first time in many years, inspectors report increasing levels of poor behaviour"
They reflect the response of pupils to poor teaching.
The correlation, albeit not a direct one, between teacher recruitment and retention, poor behaviour, and the risk of decreasing standards and progress needs to be acknowledged. It should not be denied. It is emphasised in the report and Mr. Tomlinson is flagging a significant danger. We know that it there are 4,000 to 5,000 vacancies and that vacancy rates are increasing. We know that the demographics of the teaching profession suggest that, despite the golden hellos, we are storing up problems for the future, particularly in subjects such as history, geography and religious education. There has been progress in maths and English but not all those problems have been addressed and some may even be exacerbated by some of the proposals in the Green Paper.
If an arts graduate is considering a postgraduate certificate in education in English or history and knows that his student loan will be paid off if he trains to teach English, what incentive is there to be a history teacher?
Mr. St. Aubyn: I have in my hand an e-mail from a constituent who is a new teacher. She states:
"Watching teenagers achieve and gain confidence is a pleasure that is difficult to quantify.
What is easier to quantify, however, is my mortgage, council tax, student loans' repayments and travel expenses."
She goes on to say that three of the four people she studied with have now left the profession and financial pressures are forcing her to consider doing the same. She is very sad about that.
Mr. Hayes: We must understand that when people move from working for a degree to teacher training, the available options are affected by circumstances and incentives. It may be that, perversely, encouraging people to plug the gap in English is opening an even bigger gap in subjects such as history, geography and religious education. With the addition of the demographic problem—the profession is getting older—we may be unable to deliver even basic requirements for teaching those subjects.
Standards fall when teachers teach subjects that are not their natural specialism. The Ofsted report states:
"Urgent action is more than ever needed on the recruitment and retention of teachers. There is growing evidence of the adverse impact of high staff turnover, the widespread use of temporary teachers and a poor match between teachers' qualifications and the subjects taught "
Interdependence kicks in again because the problem is especially profound in the most disadvantaged areas. It is no surprise that there is difficulty with teacher retention and recruitment where quality and standards

155WH
are the biggest problem. That causes problems with disruption and discipline, which makes it harder to attract teachers and pupils. There is a relationship between behaviour and staying on rates because people can be put off education as a whole. The Minister ought to acknowledge that several significant and growing problems in education are interdependent; the Government should acknowledge that with a more coherent policy.
I have already alluded to the report's stark remarks about behaviour. I was in a good school this morning that has problems with retention and recruitment, even though it is known as a good school. Such problems stem from teaching becoming a harder job. Indeed, in some cases home-school relationships are breaking down. We hear that behaviour is deteriorating in one in 12 of our schools. It may be one in 12 as an average, but if one visits the most disadvantaged areas, it is considerably more than that. We must not mask great problems with blind averages. The head teacher and chairman of governors of the school that I visited today said that that problem was under-recognised—I shall not say unrecognised because that would be unfair to the Minister, but the Government are not responding with sufficient vigour. That is the line that Ofsted takes when it states that "urgent action" is needed.
Mr. Tomlinson's remarks on the subject of behaviour were stark:
"for the first time in recent years, inspectors report increasing levels of poor behaviour…a few pupils disobedience and disruption can undermine the work of the whole class."
He also stated that a small but significant proportion of pupils
"are very demanding and challenge even the most competent teachers."
He continued:
"Poor behaviour and negative attitudes towards work are significant issues in half the schools making poor progress in raising pupils' attainment."
Mr. Sheerman: I participated in an earlier education debate with the hon. Gentleman when reference was also made to bad behaviour. Members of the Select Committee try to strike a balance in these matters because it does no one any good to exaggerate the problem. In that debate, I asked him and his hon. Friends to dissociate themselves from the wild remarks made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who claimed that the role of the teacher was merely to try to keep order. It was a dreadful comment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to repudiate it.
Mr. Hayes: I would not want to repudiate anything that I had not read or heard.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman was there.
Mr. Hayes: Well, I shall examine the record carefully.
I can inform the hon. Gentleman, whom I know brings a considered view to these matters, that I am not describing the situation in every school. I have emphasised that the problem is worse in certain areas and is especially significant in areas that suffer from other problems. That is not my view, but the view
156WH
expressed in the Ofsted report. The report draws attention to problems with, for example, ethnic minority pupils and deprived areas. We have a poisonous cocktail of recruitment and retention difficulties, poor behaviour and a difficulty in achieving high standards.
I agree that it would be wrong to suggest that that was the daily experience of every teacher, parent, head and pupil in every school. Equally, the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be wrong to sweep the problem under the carpet, given what Ofsted has said. It has warned us that the problem may become injurious to standards. All hon. Members and the Government must take that warning extremely seriously. There is a vicious circle of disruption, under-achievement and retention problems.
Teachers feel embattled due to an excess of schemes and initiatives, which is also a threat to standards. Teachers' daily experience is one of pet-project fatigue, as was made clear to me in two schools today. They want a period of stability, and do not want to be overburdened by excessive regulation and red tape. We need to collect data, as has been said, but it must be used effectively so that it is not just collected for its own sake. We must not become more obsessed with collecting data than delivering results. There is a worry that each new scheme and initiative puts additional pressure on hard-pressed teachers and schools, especially as such schemes sometimes overlap and contradict one another. Head teachers and governors will often protect their teachers from such schemes because they are mindful of those worries, which have been expressed to me as I have visited schools around the country.
The standard of achievement is good in the vast bulk of our schools, and we must achieve a balance between proper reservation and celebration. We must celebrate the work of our teachers. It is extraordinary that every civilisation that I can think of—ancient Greece, ancient Rome, China, Persia, Egypt, and hon. Members may be able to think of others—valued and revered the role of the educator, yet western society has denigrated teachers in the second half of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st. That is inappropriate. It is not good for teachers and worse for our civilisation. We should celebrate the achievements, efforts and endeavours of teachers who do excellent work in our country every day.
I want to draw attention to what Ofsted said about the need to be vigilant in maintaining standards. In education—in an individual school, an LEA or a nation—complacency is always a danger. We must think about how we can maintain the improvement. I suggest that we do so by recognising that teachers are creative and innovative people who need to be given the freedom to express that creativity.
We need to exercise a greater degree of good judgment in the powers that we give to schools. That is difficult, because where there is freedom, there is the freedom to disappoint and not to deliver. However, there is also the freedom to excel. Some schools are desperate for the freedom to set their own means by which to achieve targets. We can set our desired targets, but we can also give schools the freedom to meet them in their own way. I am concerned that an over-prescriptive attitude will be injurious to standards. We must have the courage, energy and foresight to trust our teachers to innovate, to allow our governors to manage and to

157WH
allow our heads to lead. That seems to be the next step on the road that we have travelled, sometimes apart and sometimes together.
A measure of agreement seems to have been engendered today. Unless we achieve it, we will not move forward. I am frightened that we shall not achieve it, certainly not through the Green Paper, but unless we do, not only will our schools suffer, but our children—our very future.
5.4 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I thank hon. Members for a very useful, supportive, sensitive and sensible debate. I agree with much of what has been said, but disagree with some things. I will try to respond as fully as I can in the time available.
I begin with three sets of thanks. First, I join members of the Select Committee in thanking the teachers, head teachers, governors, parents, pupils and communities of the 24,000 schools in this country. Most of those schools get very good results and we have a right to be proud of them. Hon. Members have quoted the figures in the Ofsted report. They are on the record, correct and a joy to behold. I add two further statistics, which have not been mentioned and which touch on many of the issues that hon. Members have drawn on.
The first figure fills me with awe, wonder and amazement—I say that partly for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). No local authority is performing, in terms of literacy or numeracy, at a level at or below the national average of three years ago. That merits our awe and wonder and shows what teachers can achieve if we get things right, support them well, put resources into the system and base our work on good evidence.
The second set of statistics shows that the greatest improvement in GCSE performance and in literacy and numeracy is in areas of the greatest deprivation. For many years, what is basically a good national education system has had the flaw of allowing the difference of attainment between those who achieve and those who do not to grow and grow. We all strive for excellence, and even the best can be better, but I pay tribute to and acknowledge the improvement of the children in those schools that have traditionally under-achieved.
Secondly, I thank Ofsted. I particularly thank the chief inspector, the inspectors—whatever guise they come in and wherever they inspect—and the Ofsted staff, without whose effort and work we would not have a report to discuss. Without them, there would be no inspection system and no statistics from which to learn and of which to be proud.
Thirdly, I thank the Select Committee—its Chairman and its members—for its work throughout the year. I would be lying if I said that I looked forward to appearances before the Select Committee. That would be less than truthful. It is not with awe and wonder that I sit before them; it is, rightly, with some trepidation. Perhaps appearing before the Committee is a better analogy for the experience undergone by teachers and governors during inspection than the analogy of a general election. Inspection is useful—it is good to be
158WH
questioned in depth to read the report and to have to respond to it. I welcome our dialogue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and to Committee members for their work.
I confirm that we have now decided that, at the end of the term of office of the present adjudicator, in June, whoever gets the post will be appointed by the Secretary of State. To add something that perhaps has not been picked up, the new term of office will be for three years, to give more stability. I trust that members of the Select Committee will welcome that.
It is tempting to respond to every point that has been raised and to get into a battle over things that I support, things that I want to quibble about, the odd percentage point or the wording of a particular phrase in the Ofsted report. I will try not to do that. Perhaps the best way in which to respond is to deal with the general themes of the Committee's proceedings and of our discussions.
Every hon. Member has said that Ofsted inspections are okay, but what t eally matters is what happens after the inspectors have gone. There has been an interesting debate. In this country, we no longer have to argue the need for clear inspections and for information to be put into the public domain. The debate about what should be done when the inspectors have gone is interesting and we have heard both sides of the argument.
Obviously, if nothing happens, a golden opportunity has been wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central said that, in both the inspections in which he had been involved, the teachers were left saying, "It has got us right, but it has told us nothing that we did not know." I had another interesting conversation with a mutual friend of ours, who shall remain nameless, who said of LEA inspections, "Not one of them has been a surprise to me." My question to him and to the schools is, "What did you do about it?" It will be no good knowing about it and saying, "They have not surprised me" if nothing is done about it. The fact that they knew about it but the situation is still the same leads me to think that what was missing was the ability to do anything about it. The difficult part, with respect to Ofsted, is knowing what to do about it.
I am proud to say that the Government have opened that debate. I acknowledge, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, that the last Conservative Government introduced some of the key measures for assessing performance—SATS, end of key stage results, performance tables and inspection. All that accountability information had to be put in place. What the previous Government never put in place was a school improvement package to go with it. Schools were therefore left on their own.
I agree with most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central Says, but on this occasion I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). It is crucial that Ofsted remains independent. What I worry about most is inspectors coming back and inspecting again. They are not so perfect—no one is—that they might not be tempted to think, "They have done what I said, so it must be right." It is more complex than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central hit on what I think is the answer—the local authority and the Government have it responsibility to ensure that the school is not left by itself. The worst thing about a bad

159WH
Ofsted inspection report is the loneliness the staff must feel on Friday night and on Monday morning when they return to school. It is the feeling of being alone; they are not one of the majority with good inspection reports and wonder what to do about it. The measures that we have introduced to support those schools re showing results. The local authority must move in, not so much to tell the school what to do, but—this is the key point—to ensure that it learns from other schools that are already doing well. Successful schools are the best teachers, not Ofsted inspectors, advisers or Ministers.
Dr. Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Estelle Morris: I shall when 1 have finished my train of thought.
Part of the challenge is to make successful links through the extension and spreading of good practice, which enables schools to learn from each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) referred to a deputy head who had gone to work with a struggling school. That is one way of spreading good practice.
The best way to achieve objectives—whether twinning of heads, or twinning with other schools that have had similar experiences, enabling staff to share good practice or professional development—must be determined not by academic research, but by what works in schools in similar circumstances. We are beginning to build that in. We have developed beacon schools with the mission of sharing good practice. We have given specialist schools the role of working with schools that may not be as strong. We have set up the standards website. Our advisers spend days and weeks phoning schools and saying, "You're weak on that. Do you know the school down the road that is slightly better?" I acknowledge that we are just beginning to try to develop connections with good and improving schools. However, I would sooner go down that road than only have inspectors who inspect, advise and inspect again.
I applaud the school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, which said to an inspector, "Can you come in and tell us what went wrong?" I have no problem with that as long as the same inspector does not come back to inspect. In that situation, an individual took on a different role and I have no problem with that. Inspectors, in a different part of their life and wearing a different hat, might contribute to advice about school improvement. Their expertise should not be ignored. I do not care whether inspectors assume a different guise. The key point is that the follow-up must be outside the Ofsted I framework.
Dr. Harris: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Lady has said. I just want to tike her back to the thought that some schools knew that there was a problem, so the report would not tell them anything that they did not know. The report allows such schools to access the funding available under the statutory duty of LEAs to support those that are deemed to be "failing". Would it be sensible to ensure that schools can either access that help directly, if they accept that there is a
160WH
problem, without having wait for an inspection, or call in an inspection, rather than just hope for improvements?
Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Ofsted report states that schools in special measures have a good record. They are leaving special measures more quickly than they did under the regime of the previous Government. For the first time, fewer schools are going into special measures than are coming out. If I remember correctly, about 68 schools went into special measures in the autumn term of 1998 and 47 went into special measures in the autumn term of 2000. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that schools with serious weaknesses are not making sufficient progress. If schools go into special measures, the support mechanism will be there to get them out. The really good news is that they stay out and grow from strength to strength.
Mike Tomlinson said that schools with special weaknesses on the second inspection round sometimes slip into special measures. We recognise that that is a real challenge. As I said, schools and the LEAs should know if they are heading on the downward trail and do something about it. The hon. Members for Guildford and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) were right: there is so much good quality information in the system that we should all know if a school is heading for serious weaknesses or special measures.
I can ask for the most elaborate performance data on any one of the 24,000 schools in the country and receive the details in two minutes. We have responsibilities to assist such schools, to monitor them before the inspectors visit them and to stop them going into special measures. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is right that the schools have to key into better resources and support.
In January at the north of England conference, I announced up to £70,000 extra for all schools in which less than 25 per cent. of pupils were achieving five A to C grades. The excellence in cities clusters are not just magicked out of the air. It is not a case of, "Where shall we have the next excellence in cities cluster?" They are areas with a high level of free school meals and underachievement. Our policy is to pile on with the basics of effective literacy and numeracy strategies for all students. An effective key stage 3 strategy is to come. The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Let us use the extra money to pinpoint support for schools that need it most because of deprivation and under-achievement. To date, there has been a tendency to think that those matters go together, but they do not. That has been a failure in the system. We have piled in the money after the failure has taken place.
We must become brave enough to say that, whenever a school goes into special measures, the system has failed—someone should have kept the school out before that occurred. Not until then will we be able to say that we have a good school improvement system. We have put in place a lever that will take us in that direction.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the Minister for her generous comments. As she said, given all the available information, she should know what is going on. Does

161WH
she agree with the chief inspector's assessment of the situation in last week's report that the increase in standards is at risk?
Ms Morris: Good teachers are essential to the improvement in standards. We have high standards only because teachers are teaching more effectively. We have played a role in bringing that about. If we did not have sufficiently well-qualified effective teachers, standards would be at risk. The Government have introduced golden hellos, training salaries and the paying off of student loans. They have achieved more routes into teaching and developed courses so that people can obtain a degree and be teachers in three years instead of four. We would not have done that if we did not acknowledge the existence of a problem. A lot of resources must be devoted to the issue because, if it is not addressed, standards could fall. We have always made the link between having sufficient well-qualified teachers and high standards.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is right to say that the 1994 statistics show that teacher numbers were going down until last year, when the situation began to improve. It has just occurred to me that this is the first report since the last occasion on which the economy was strong. Teaching recruitment fell at the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s. Her Majesty's inspectorate did not produce reports then, but it did produce them all the way through the period of economic decline and recession, when teacher recruitment was easier.
The Secretary of State, my boss, always says three things to me. Have we recognised the problem? We have. Are we doing something to solve it? We are. Is there evidence that that is producing a result? There is. I am not going to repeat what I said in two debates on the Floor of the House, but the link to which I referred explains why we are spending so much money. Evidence is beginning to show that it is having an effect: applications are 12 per cent. up on this time last year. Expressions of interest, which have increased greatly, are not included in that figure. Applications have risen by 7 per cent. in secondary schools and by the balance in primary schools.
People should not be churlish, because we admit that there is a problem. Everyone in the House should be honest about teaching with those who are considering careers in the profession. Those who exaggerate the problem by saying that Government measures are not working dissuade people from entering the profession, which does kids, parents and teachers a disservice. The measures are beginning to work, but I am not complacent.
Mr. Hayes: Far from being churlish, I revered the role of the educator during my speech. The Minister has made a good argument in respect of retention, and I acknowledge that there has been progress in maths and English. However, will she now address the problem subject areas? The Library figures show that retention
162WH
for teachers under 30 is a problem; the proportion of that age group leaving the profession has increased annually since 1995
Mr. John Butterfill (in the Chair): Briefly.
Mr. Hayes: Paying off student loans of new teachers will not deal with that problem.
Ms Morris: I do not have the figures with me, and I will clarify later if I get them wrong. However, I believe that application numbers rose for all but two subjects—I do not remember which ones—and that applications for those two had fallen by only a small percentage. I am not complacent, but application numbers were up, and the golden hellos caused the first reverse for a while in the decline of maths applications.
I do not want to get bogged down so, if hon. Members will excuse me, I will move on to the subjects of education action zones and pupil behaviour. Too many Opposition Members have missed out the same sentences while quoting from a paragraph of the Ofsted report. The report acknowledges that, for the first time, the instances of bad and destructive behaviour have increased. That provides a warning, because it is evidence based, and we will investigate. Opposition Members have quoted the sentence:
"This year, for the first time in recent years, inspectors report increasing levels of poor behaviour."
However, no one has gone on to quote:
"This is still far from a general malaise, since the proportion of good behaviour far out weighs that which is unsatisfactory, but it is an early warning."
We have taken that early warning, which is why we have been developing initiatives and spending money for the past three years. Bad behaviour does not start on the first day of the academic year—it builds up. There is general building up of bad and niggly behaviour. Low level disobedience sometimes becomes more problematic and teachers find that they can no longer cope. Teachers do not go home in the summer and come back in September and find that behaviour has worsened. There is a general decline, which is why, over the past three years, we have made money available so that we will have pupil referral units within full-time education.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings omitted the sentence from the report, which states:
"The improving performance of pupil referral units should help with this challenge."
I pay tribute to those who work in our PRUs. They cope with difficult jobs, and their performance has improved—although from too low a base. There are also learning sup ort units—1,000 on-site learning support units—and the mentors in excellence in cities. I cannot find a soul who has a bad word to say about a mentor. Teachers are glad that mentors are there because they can begin to work with children as individuals. We must t consider that package of measures together: learning support units, on-site units, full-time education for excluded children, more PRUs, more qualified teachers in them and more money to help teachers to work with the disaffected. I do not want to see worse behaviour. I take the early warning, but I have

163WH
every confidence that the measures that we will continue to put in place will help us to overcome such problems, although I am not complacent.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that what will contribute most to reducing bad behaviour is better literacy and numeracy results at key stage 2. Many children who misbehave at secondary school do not have the basic skills to access the secondary level curriculum, and poor behaviour often derives from that.
I shall now deal with education action zones, excellence in cities, key stage 3 and fresh start. The difficult end of the school improvement market is, and always has been, in those areas to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred, which face a multiplicity of challenges. There is acute poverty, low expectation, and no experience of going to university. There is the failure to master skills—often, historically, there has not been an opportunity for good quality early years education. Yet, parents in those circumstances are as aspirational for their children as parents in the more affluent areas.
Some kids who are born into this world with the potential to achieve have almost lost that ability by the age of five. Where there is such multiplicity of disadvantage, it sometimes takes longer to get it right. I have always said, and will say to my dying day, that I would rather try and not make it in the first year than turn my back, which is what happened for decades under previous Governments. If, for example, Ofsted says that in the fresh start programme three children have shown progress and five have not, then I thank God that three are making progress. That means
164WH
thousands more children will have a better life chance, because in some circumstances, schools have been failing the kids, sometimes for decades.
Where children are not making progress, we will try something different. Some of those referred to in the Ofsted report as not making progress, are now doing so—I receive fortnightly monitoring reports on them. We should never give up, we must be open and honest—just as schools have to be with Ofsted reports. The performance of our initiatives should be put on the table for debate. However, the general spread of the initiatives to raise standards is working. It is working because we have shown leadership as a Government and because we have committed the resources. Above all, it is working because we are lucky enough to live in a country where we have a profession that is prepared to stand up and be counted, to acknowledge good practice and to learn from it. Although sometimes it does so with reticence, it is professional enough to change its practice where necessary to raise standards.
The end result is an education system that is far from perfect, but improving. Certainly, after three or four years under this Government, many more children have the good fortune to be educated in many more good schools. I am happy to acknowledge that Ofsted is one of the organisations that helps us to celebrate that progress and achievement. I pay tribute to it, as I do to both the education service and the Select Committee's work.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Department Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure and the breakdown of

  £ million

  Financial year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  PR Marketing and business support service

  0.733

  0.502

  0.844

  1.114

  2.834

  Central PR Services

  2.243

  2.267

  2.328

  2.741

  2.183

  National Employers Liaison Committee (Tri- Service Reserve Forces)

  1.098

  1.089

  1.055

  0.877

  1.000

  Scholarships

  10.730

  4.720

  4.371

  0.751

  0.700

  Sales Promotion (DESO)

  1.408

  3.299

  1.064

  1.819

  1.600

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals there are to amend his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [151190]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VI Vote 1 Defence for 2000–01, the following change should apply:the Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £781.341 million from £22,820.341 million to £23,601.683 million.

  This will cover additional expenditure incurred by UK forces on operations in Kosovo and Bosnia during the current financial year of £220 million and £100 million respectively and Sierra Leone at just under £8 million. The figure also includes full take-up of the Ministry of Defence's entitlement to end year flexibility of £241 million plus additional funding from the 2000 spending review (£200 million) and for capital and civil service modernisation (£10 million). There are also a number of transfers between MOD, DETR, DfEE, FCO and Cabinet Office.

  The Supplementary Estimates will also provide for changes in the general pattern of expenditure, including adjustments between the Defence Procurement Agency's equipment programme and operating costs programmes.

  As the increase in the defence expenditure limit will be met from the reserve, it will not add to the planned total of public expenditure in the current year.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving medical officers in each specialty are not fully fit for deployment; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [149892]
  192W
  expenditure was in his Department for the financial years (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research,(ii)television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii)direct mail. [149261]

  Dr.Moonie
  [holding answers 8 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2000, Official Report, column 135W,to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr.Loughton)on a similar subject. The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, excluding recruitment costs, the table gives details of expenditure against areas identified.

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: The medical downgrading categorisation system with the armed forces covers a wide range of different levels of medical downgrading. Personnel recorded as medically downgraded may still, therefore, be capable of undertaking their full duties, albeit with restrictions, for example to their geographical location. To give an indication of this, of the 42 Army personnel included in the totals, only seven are assessed to be undeployable. Against this background, the number of medical officers, including trainees, who are medically precluded from unlimited deployment is shown by speciality. The particular nature of medical downgrading could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Number of medical officers medically precluded from unlimited deployment

  Specialty

  Number

  Anaesthetics

  7

  General Medicine

  5

  Orthodontics

  1

  Paediatrics

  1

  Psychiatry

  7

  Occupational Medicine

  10

  General Duties Medical Officers

  2

  General Practice

  29

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  1

  General Surgery

  3

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  1

  Public Health Medicine

  1

  Pathology

  1

  House Officers

  7

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military medical posts in each of the specialties in defence of secondary care are filled by civilian doctors; what percentage of the establishment figure for each specialty this represents; and if he will make a statement. [149893]
  193W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many helicopters, broken down by type, other than Chinooks, were stationed in Northern Ireland in May and June 1994; and where they were based; [150405]

  (2) what other helicopters were available at the base in Northern Ireland from which Chinook DZ 576 departed on its last flight on 2 June 1994; how many of each type there were; and how many passengers each type could have transported from RAF Aldergrove to the destination of ZD 576. [150407]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: Figures for the number of helicopters stationed in Northern Ireland in May and June 1994 are no longer held. However, details of the notional number of helicopters available for tasking in December 1994 are shown. Notional numbers of helicopters available for tasking in May and June 1994 would have been very similar. Figures for the number of passengers which each aircraft can transport are also shown.

  11 Gazelle (2 passengers)

  7 Lynx (9 passengers)

  2 Sea Kings (17 passengers)

  7 Wessex (6 passengers)

  7 Puma (12 passengers).

  Gazelle and Wessex helicopters would need to refuel during a sortie from RAF Aldergrove to Fort George.

  All of these aircraft were based at RAF Aldergrove except for the following:

  Armagh—2 Lynx

  Belfast—1 Gazelle

  Bessbrook—2 Lynx, 1 Puma, 1 Sea King

  Dungannon—1 Wessex

  Omagh—1 Gazelle, 1 Puma, 1 Wessex

  Portadown—1 Gazelle.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance was given to his Department by the Boeing company in investigating the crash of helicopter ZD 576. [150408]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The air frame manufacturers, Boeing Helicopters, provided on site assistance to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch Inspector. Subsequently, between June and December 1994 Boeing also provided extensive assistance with the investigation of the wreckage while it was laid out at DRA Farnborough and further specific assistance was provided on items returned to Boeing Helicopters Philadelphia for examination and testing.

  The RAF Board of Inquiry into the accident consulted Boeing and obtained computer simulations of possible flight paths and associated data concerning flight control parameters.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the sound levels in decibels are inside the passenger area of a Chinook helicopter. [150402]
  194W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The noise in the passenger cabin of a Chinook Mk1 aircraft was measured over a series of 25 sorties during August 1993 and the mean levels were 103.5 decibels and 87.8 decibels. Such measurements are not available for the Chinook Mk2 aircraft, but would not be significantly different.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the passengers who were killed in the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre travelled by aircraft to the base from which they departed in Chinook ZD 576; [150404]

  (2) on how many occasions Flight Lieutenants (a) Cook and (b) Tapper had flown helicopters and of what types over or adjacent to the Mull of Kintyre between 1 June 1993 and 2 June 1994. [150406]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The details requested in these two questions are not known.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Chinook helicopters were flown(a) into and (b) out of Northern Ireland on 2 June 1994; and what their flight times and routes were. [150410]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: No Chinook helicopters flew into Northern Ireland on 2 June 1994. One flew out, that being Chinook ZD 576 which left RAF Aldergrove at 17.42 hours, en route to Fort George.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)(a) when, (b) where and (c) by whom helicopter ZD 576 was fitted with FADEC; and when the aircraft (i) entered service with the armed forces and (ii) was built; [150414]

  (2) if he will list the way points of the flight of Chinook helicopter ZD 576 on 2 June 1994, indicating the altitude which the aircraft was supposed to maintain between each way point. [150412]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long tasking records of helicopter flights are normally retained; in what form they are stored; how long they are retained in the case of an accident; and if the tasking records of the last flight of helicopter ZD 576 have been retained. [150409]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: Tasking forms recording helicopter flights in Northern Ireland are retained for six years. However in the case of an accident the relevant tasking record for the day it occurred will normally be held as part of the Board of Inquiry papers, for as long as it is necessary to retain the latter. The 2 June 1994 tasking record for Chinook ZD 576 is still retained with the RAF Board of Inquiry report.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and which Chinook helicopters were stationed in Northern Ireland in the months of May and June 1994; and from which bases they operated. [150403]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: At that time two Chinook helicopters were detached to Northern Ireland. In May 1994 these were Mk1s until

  195W
  31 May when ZD 576, the first Chinook Mk2 to operate in Northern Ireland, was delivered to RAF Aldergrove, and one of the Mk1s was flown back to RAF Odiham. All the Chinook aircraft in Northern Ireland operate out of RAF Aldergrove and return there at the end of the day's tasking.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it was decided, and by whom, that Chinook helicopter ZD 576 would be used on the flight on which it crashed on 2 June 1994. [150411]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The flight was tasked by the Joint Air Tasking Operations Centre (JATOC) in Northern Ireland on 1 June 1994.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), of 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 358W, what steps have been taken to recover the depleted uranium munitions test-fired into the Adriatic Sea. [149649]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy uses depleted uranium (DU) in its Phalanx close-in weapon systems fitted to some ships for anti-missile and aircraft defence. Each round contains only a small quantity of DU. We know from our monitoring of substantial quantities of DU fired into the Solway Firth over many years that this has no detectable impact on uranium levels in sediment or marine life. There are significant amounts of natural uranium in seawater, and the firing of a few Phalanx rounds containing small quantities of DU will have minimal impact on the marine environment of the Adriatic.

  Malaria
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical advice was given to members of the armed forces deployed on Operation Palliser prior to deployment regarding the risks of malaria; what anti-malarial protection precautions were taken with regard to armed forces kit and equipment for Operation Palliser(a) before deployment and (b) in theatre; and if he will make a statement. [149178]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department maintains sufficient supplies of anti-malarial and other drugs to provide maximum protection for members of the armed forces who might be deployed at short notice. [149889]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The Medical Supplies Agency (MSA) has arrangements in place for the provision of medical supplies in support of operations, across a wide range of contingencies. These arrangements include stock held by the MSA and stock held by private vendor contractors that can be made available at short notice (within 24 hours). There have been occasional problems with some vaccines that have a limited shelf life. Last year, for example, there was a national shortage of Yellow Fever vaccine. Despite this, MSA procurement staff were able to put in place arrangements to meet operational requirements.
  196W
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to send UK forces into tropical areas if they are not adequately protected against malaria and other tropical diseases. [150214]

  Dr. Moonie
  Medical issues are taken into account during the process of planning for any deployment of UK forces. It is our policy to provide all reasonable protective measures to prevent malaria and other infectious diseases, which troops might be exposed to during an overseas deployment to the tropics.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149252]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The number of press releases issued by the Ministry of Defence between the financial years 1996 to 2000 are indicated in the table:

  Ministry of Defence press releases

  Number issued

  April 1996-March 1997

  239

  April 1998-March 1998

  384

  April 1998-March 1999

  315

  April 1999-March 2000

  362

  Between April 2000 to January 2001 the MOD issued a total of 266 press releases. The current rate of issue is expected to continue to the end of the current financial year.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for children of far east internees to receive compensation in cases where neither parent is alive. [150099]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ex gratia payment scheme, which I announced in the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–70, is for the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War. Where a person who would have been eligible for the scheme has died, his or her surviving spouse is entitled to receive it instead. The children of former prisoners are not eligible for the scheme unless they were themselves interned by the Japanese.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many US military personnel have been stationed at RAF Fylingdales for each of the last three years. [150474]

  Mr. Hoon
  One.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs to the United Kingdom of installing National Missile Defence facilities at RAF Fylingdales. [150478]
  197W
  Mr. Hoon
  None. Any estimate would be made in light of a request from the United States to install facilities at RAF Fylingdales. No such request has been received.

  Warcop Common
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions on access to Warcop will result from his Department's plan to buy out the commoners. [150267]

  Dr. Moonie
  The proposals will lead to some restrictions but greater certainty of access. Mondays would be lost, but there would be guaranteed access on 12 non-firing weekends programmed across the year, linked where possible to public holidays. Furthermore, access will be available each Sunday from 13.00 hours. It is also intended to create new routes in the locality. The proposals are still being developed in discussion with English Nature, the Countryside Agency and local representatives of user groups such as the Rambler's Association.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many days a year his Department closes its land at Warcop for grouse shooting. [150268]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. Grouse shooting takes place only when the ranges are closed for maintenance.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often grouse shooting at Warcop prevents MOD training. [150269]

  Dr. Moonie
  Grouse shooting at Warcop does not, and never has, prevented the Army from training there.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Vessels (Rosyth)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed refit and repair work for Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, with particular reference to the share of this work, that will be allocated to Rosyth dockyard. [150120]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Warwick University
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the University of Warwick regarding the university's requirement that students own or lease a computer as a condition of entrance; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the take up of courses of this policy. [150534]

  Mr. Wicks
  No discussions have taken place with the University of Warwick about this matter. The Department has, however, received a copy of the University's consultation document on their proposed e-strategy and has been invited to comment. The Government have made it clear, in regulations and guidance issued to higher education institutions in August 1999, what charges may be levied without breaching the proscription on top-up fees.

  Cheshire and Halton LEAs
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the average expenditure per pupil in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in(a) Halton and (b) Cheshire local education authorities in (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99 and (3) 1999–2000; and what the amount is for 2000–01. [148847]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The following table sets out the overall resources per pupil made available to Halton and Cheshire local education authorities for compulsory primary and secondary education, in both cash and real terms.

  Standard spending assessment and special/specific grants 1

  £ per pupil

  Primary (5–10) (cash)

  Secondary (11–15) (cash)

  Primary (5–10) (real terms)

  Secondary (11–15) (real terms)

  Halton

  1997–982

  2,160

  2,840

  2,320

  3,050

  1998–99

  2,280

  2,980

  2,380

  3,110

  1999–2000

  2,480

  3,130

  2,530

  3,200

  2000–01

  2,780

  3,430

  2,780

  3,430

  Cheshire

  1997–982

  1,990

  2,570

  2,140

  2,760

  1998–99

  2,100

  2,700

  2,190

  2,810

  1999–2000

  2,280

  2,840

  2,330

  2,890

  2000–01

  2,480

  3,050

  2,480

  3,050

  1 Rounded to nearest £10

  2 Notional figures assuming an apportionment, in accordance with post April 1998 local government re-organisation

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 nationally in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review, a further £370 per pupil over the three-year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04. The following table shows the average net institutional expenditure per pupil in pre-primary/primary and secondary schools in Halton and Cheshire, for the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, the latest year for which this information is currently available. These figures are not comparable with the funding figures above. They cover school based outturn expenditure, but not the cost of meals, or of centrally run activities such as home to school transport and certain special educational needs services.

  Halton local education authority became a local education authority from April 1998. The figures shown here for 1997–98 are for Cheshire prior to the reorganisation.

  £ (cash)

  1997–981

  1998–991

  Halton

  Pre-primary/primary

  —

  1,870

  Secondary

  —

  2,490

  Cheshire

  Pre-primary/primary

  1,710

  1,770

  Secondary

  2,320

  2,360

  1 Rounded to the nearest £10

  North Southwark Education Action Zone
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reasons underlay the delay in presenting the North Southwark Education Action Zone account for 1998–99 to Parliament. [150350]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: Zone accounts are laid before Parliament by the National Audit Office (NAO) once they are satisfied that they can give a full opinion. The NAO found that North Southwark EAZ had difficulty in providing evidence to support some zone transactions and needed to strengthen financial controls. Once these issues had been successfully resolved the accounts were laid before Parliament.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average value is of the debt owed by a student leaving university. [150422]

  Mr. Wicks
  The average debt of a borrower with a mortgage-style student loan entering repayment at the start of the financial year 1999–2000, the latest date for which data are available, was £3,210

  Information on private sector debt such as overdrafts and other commercial loans is not available centrally.

  Funding allocations to Cumbria

  £000

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Education Standard Spending Assessment

  170,602

  170,400

  186,100

  195,500

  205,834

  Schools Capital

  6,175

  4,920

  7,680

  10,254

  19,764

  Standards Fund

  1,550

  1,985

  2,884

  5,309

  11,316

  School Standards Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,399

  School Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  571

  Nursery Education Grant

  —

  1,951

  557

  601

  804

  Schedule 32 Grant

  —

  —

  —

  107

  73

  Insurance Grant for former GM Schools

  —

  —

  —

  28

  24

  Transitional Grant for former GM Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  199

  Teachers Pay Reform Special Grant: Threshold

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,604

  Schools in the Copeland constituency received £462,000 School Standards Grant (SSG) in 2000–01, with an estimated SSG of £860,000 for Copeland schools in 2001–02. Final allocations for 2001–02 will depend on pupil numbers as reported in the Annual Schools Census.

  The table shows the schools in the Copeland constituency which have benefited from investment

  New Deal for schools—allocations to schools in the Copeland constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1997–98

  St. Bridget's Primary

  Replacement of temporary classrooms

  1598,000

  Millom Schools

  ICT Room

  All county and voluntary controlled primary schools which have no fire alarm system

  Provision of fire alarm systems

  Whitehaven School

  Upgrade laboratories

  New Deal (Over-50s)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged over 50 years in(a) Yorkshire and Humberside and (b) the city of York are eligible to apply for the New Deal for the over 50s. [149448]

  Ms Jowell
  At December 2000, 7,565 JSA recipients in the Employment Service region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and 105 people in the unitary authority area of York, were eligible for New Deal 50 plus. It is not possible to provide figures for eligible people in receipt of non-JSA benefits.

  School Funding (Copeland)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the additional resources he has made available to schools in Copeland; under which(a) schemes and (b) funds they are provided; and if he will make a statement; [149173]

  (2) if he will estimate the cash resources to be paid directly to Copeland schools in 2001–02 on the basis of his proposals in the pre-Budget report; and if he will list the schools to benefit, giving the sum in each case. [149296]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding for schools is distributed via local education authorities. Many funding allocations can be given only at local education authority level, not constituency level. Listed are the Department's funding allocations for education in Cumbria for each year since 1996–97. The figures for 2000–01 are the total grants currently estimated to be paid.

  through the New Deal for Schools programme which commenced in 1917–98. This is the only constituency level information for capital expenditure which is readily available. These allocations formed part of the £ 10.877 million investment made so far in schools in Cumbria under the New Deal for Schools programme, and are included in the total schools capital funding allocations for Cumbria already listed.
  201W

  New Deal for schools—allocations to schools in the Copeland constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1998–99

  St. Benedict's RC High School

  Refurbishment of six science laboratories

  204,336

  1999–2000

  Captain Shaw's CofE School

  Repair and remodelling of school building

  256,205

  St. Benedict's RC High School

  Fire precautions

  22,248

  Ehenside School

  Fire precautions

  20,000

  Brookwell Primary School

  Replacement of temporary classroom

  103,110

  Millom School

  Remodelling of science laboratories

  123,852

  2000–01

  St. Benedict's RC High School

  Drainage, levelling and resurfacing school playing fields

  146,575

  Refurbishment of food technology areas

  49,890

  Ehenside School

  Refurbishment of labs

  27,588

  Window replacement

  146,300

  Gym and changing area refurbishment

  60,610

  Replacement of hall floor and associated walkway

  24,200

  Remodelling of CDT and art facilities

  200,000

  Whitehaven School

  Refurbishment of labs

  90,134

  Ennerdale and Kinniside CofE Primary School

  Millennium extension project

  50,500

  Wyndham School

  Library block refurbishment

  68,200

  Remodelling/upgrading of laboratories

  75,000

  Thornhill Primary School

  Re-roofing

  104,500

  Distington Infant School

  Renewal of defective flat roofs

  17,875

  1 Denotes total allocation made to all projects

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £3,000 in real terms, and it will increase by a further££150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students he has appointed to Learning and Skills Councils. [148982]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: The information requested is not available as applicants for positions with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the local LSCs were not asked to declare whether they are currently or have been students.

  However, we recognise that to be successful, the LSC must be fully responsive to the needs of learners and potential learners. Learning Partnerships are already charged with ensuring that consultative mechanisms are

  Leavers 1994–95

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years2

  All leavers3

  Nursery and primary

  610

  610

  600

  15,500 (8 per cent.)

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  80

  80

  70

  n/a

  English

  80

  90

  80

  n/a

  Science

  80

  120

  100

  n/a

  Languages

  80

  100

  100

  n/a

  Technology and Art

  110

  130

  70

  n/a

  History

  30

  30

  30

  n/a

  Geography

  10

  30

  30

  n/a

  202W
  in place to capture and articulate the views and opinions of young and adult learners, and feed these back to the LSC.

  The LSC itself is also considering what further mechanisms it needs to put in place at national and local levels to ensure that young people are effectively engaged in the new arrangements, and to advise on young people's learning needs and expectations.

  Newly Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many newly qualified teachers employed in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector, have left their posts within (i) one year. (ii) two years and (iii) three years in each of the past five years, broken down in the case of secondary school teachers by the subject of their qualification. [147636]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The number of leavers in each year as a proportion of the appropriate cohort of new entrants has remained reasonably constant throughout the five year period and the proportion of leavers from the overall number of teachers in service fell in 1998–99.

  New full-time and part-time qualified teachers from the nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England who left the maintained schools sector in their first three years, and all leavers, are as follows.
  203W

  Leavers 1994–95

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years2

  All leavers3

  Music

  20

  30

  30

  n/a

  Religious education

  20

  20

  20

  n/a

  Physical education

  30

  30

  50

  n/a

  Other subject or subject not known

  90

  90

  100

  n/a

  Total secondary

  620

  750

  660

  15,600 (8 per cent.)

  Total nursery, primary and secondary

  1,230

  1,360

  1,260

  31,100 (8 per cent.)

  Leavers as a proportion of the appropriate cohort of new entrants (per cent.)

  6.9

  8.4

  8.2

  Leavers 1995–96

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years2

  All leavers3

  Nursery and primary

  680

  640

  620

  15,800 (8 per cent.)

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  80

  120

  70

  n/a

  English

  70

  120

  90

  n/a

  Science

  120

  160

  130

  n/a

  Languages

  80

  130

  110

  n/a

  Technology and Art

  130

  150

  110

  n/a

  History

  40

  40

  30

  n/a

  Geography

  20

  40

  30

  n/a

  Music

  20

  30

  20

  n/a

  Religious education

  20

  30

  30

  n/a

  Physical education

  60

  40

  50

  n/a

  Other subject or subject not known

  90

  90

  80

  n/a

  Total secondary

  720

  920

  730

  16,600 (8 per cent.)

  Total nursery, primary and secondary

  1,400

  1,560

  1,340

  32,400 (8 per cent.)

  Leavers as a proportion of the appropriate eohort of new entrants (per cent.)

  7.3

  8.8

  8.3

  Leavers 1996–97

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years2

  All leavers3

  Nursery and primary

  650

  650

  620

  16,400 (9 per cent.)

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  80

  100

  80

  n/a

  English

  80

  100

  100

  n/a

  Science

  120

  130

  130

  n/a

  Languages

  90

  100

  100

  n/a

  Technology and Art

  120

  120

  140

  n/a

  History

  40

  30

  30

  n/a

  Geography

  20

  40

  40

  n/a

  Music

  20

  30

  20

  n/a

  Religious education

  20

  20

  20

  n/a

  Physical education

  50

  40

  60

  n/a

  Other subject or subject not known

  70

  50

  60

  n/a

  Total secondary

  700

  760

  790

  15,900 (8 per cent.)

  Total nursery, primary and secondary

  1,350

  1,410

  1,400

  32,400 (8 per cent.)

  Leavers as a proportion of the appropriate cohort of new entrants (per cent.)

  7.0

  7.3

  7.9

  Leavers 1997–98

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years2

  All leavers3

  Nursery and primary

  730

  730

  690

  17,700 (9 per cent.)

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  70

  100

  80

  n/a

  English

  100

  120

  100

  n/a

  Science

  110

  140

  130

  n/a

  Languages

  80

  110

  120

  n/a

  Technology and Art

  100

  130

  120

  n/a

  History

  40

  40

  30

  n/a

  Geography

  30

  30

  40

  n/a

  Music

  20

  30

  30

  n/a

  Religious education

  20

  30

  30

  n/a

  204W 205W

  Leavers 1997–98

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years3

  All leavers3

  Physical education

  70

  50

  40

  n/a

  Other subject or subject not known

  60

  50

  50

  n/a

  Total secondary

  710

  820

  760

  17,700 (9 per cent.)

  Total nursery, primary and secondary

  1,440

  1,550

  1,460

  35,100 (9 per cent.)

  Leavers as a proportion of the appropriate cohort of new entrants (per cent.)

  7.2

  8.0

  7.6

  Leavers 1998–99

  Less than 1 year1,2

  One but less than 2 years2

  Two but less than 3 years22

  All leavers 33

  Nursery and primary

  580

  760

  770

  13,500 (7 per cent.)

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  80

  100

  100

  n/a

  English

  120

  130

  120

  n/a

  Science

  130

  170

  140

  n/a

  Languages

  90

  130

  130

  n/a

  Technology and Art

  130

  150

  120

  n/a

  History

  40

  40

  40

  n/a

  Geography

  40

  60

  30

  n/a

  Music

  20

  40

  30

  n/a

  Religious education

  30

  40

  20

  n/a

  Physical education

  70

  70

  50

  n/a

  Other subject or subject not known

  50

  50

  40

  n/a

  Total secondary

  790

  970

  820

  14,000 (7 per cent.)

  Total nursery, primary and secondary

  1,380

  1,730

  1,580

  27,500 (7 per cent.)

  Leavers as a proportion of the appropriate cohort of new entrants (per cent.)

  6.4

  8.6

  8.2

  1 Includes those who entered and left within a year.

  2 Excludes those who left but returned to service within the same financial year.

  3 All full-time and part-time qualified teachers from the nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England who have left teaching or left the maintained schools sector. The figure in brackets is all leavers as a percentage of full and part-time teachers in service at the start of the financial year. Subject of qualification is not available for leavers who qualified before 1985.

  The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.There was a growth of 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up from 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  Employment Service Overheads (New Deal)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which overheads incurred by the Employment Service are attributable to the implementation of the New Deal. [141694]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]The Employment Service funding for all New Deals is determined on a marginal cost basis on the assumption that these programmes will be delivered through the existing ES infrastructure of offices and IT. The Employment Service overheads which are attributable to the implementation of the New Deals are therefore those specific costs related to project design; implementation; marketing and publicity and limited refurbishment in some offices for the individual New Deals.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes will be made to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for her Department in 2000–01. [151103]

  Clare Short
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, for Class VIII, Vote 1: Department for International Development, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2000–01 will be increased by £68,000,000 from £2,121,732,000 to £2,189,732,000 for voted expenditure giving a total of voted and non-voted expenditure of £2,827,768,000. The increase is the net effect of: an increase of £59,000,000 End Year Flexibility from an underspend against the 1998 EC Attributed Aid:
  an increase of £9,000,000 from the Reserve in respect of humanitarian assistance in response to the earthquake in India.

  The increase will be met by a claim on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Investment Programmet (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much the Government Office for London allocated to Wandsworth Council's housing investment programme for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [148139]

  (2) how much the Government Office for London has allocated to Wandsworth council for major repairs (a) through the major repairs allowance for 2001–02 and (b) through the housing investment programme for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [148124]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The allocations made to Wandsworth to support the authority's housing capital programmes in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are as follows:

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Housing annual capital guidelines

  20.592

  11.386

  Private sector renewal

  1—

  1.500

  Disabled facilities grants

  0.240

  0.237

  Total housing investment programmes allocations

  20.832

  13.123

  Major repairs allowance (MRA)

  1—

  14.773

  Total

  20,832

  27.896

  1 Not applicable

  The MRA, which was introduced for 2001–02, is ring-fenced for works on council housing. The resources allocated through housing annual capital guidelines provide unhypothecated support for authorities' housing capital programmes which cover expenditure on private sector renewal and support for new provision by housing associations as well as work on council housing.

  Allocations made to Wandsworth doubled between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the special advisers working for him will relinquish their posts on the dissolution of Parliament. [149318]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  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.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning appeals were lodged with his Department against decisions of(a) Brentwood council and (b) planning authorities in Essex in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many such appeals were dismissed by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [149811]
  208W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Eric Pickles, dated 12 February 2001:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeals in Brentwood and other local authorities in Essex.
  Statistics at this level are only available from 1994. The table attached gives the number of appeals received in each year from then and, of those, the number dismissed for Brentwood Council and other planning authorities in Essex.

  Year/ Local Planning authority

  Appeals received

  Appeals determined

  Appeals dismissed

  Brentwood

  1994

  54

  47

  23

  1995

  40

  38

  23

  1996

  52

  46

  34

  1997

  69

  63

  44

  1998

  85

  75

  46

  1999

  77

  72

  40

  2000

  55

  38

  25

  Basildon

  1994

  58

  53

  37

  1995

  54

  48

  31

  1996

  51

  42

  31

  1997

  40

  33

  24

  1998

  58

  58

  44

  1999

  46

  41

  28

  2000

  51

  33

  25

  Braintree

  1994

  29

  26

  17

  1995

  35

  22

  20

  1996

  34

  32

  26

  1997

  35

  30

  21

  1998

  33

  31

  23

  1999

  30

  30

  25

  2000

  46

  26

  16

  Castle Point

  1994

  45

  41

  24

  1995

  41

  42

  24

  1996

  49

  43

  20

  1997

  51

  46

  24

  1998

  51

  49

  22

  1999

  61

  57

  35

  2000

  35

  22

  12

  Chelmsford

  1994

  68

  60

  43

  1995

  82

  70

  49

  1996

  103

  90

  58

  1997

  81

  70

  40

  1998

  95

  86

  53

  1999

  105

  95

  58

  2000

  107

  68

  43

  Colchester

  1994

  59

  42

  36

  1995

  66

  52

  30

  1996

  67

  52

  35

  1997

  59

  55

  30

  1998

  69

  56

  30

  1999

  53

  45

  25

  2000

  51

  26

  14

  209W

  Year/ Local planning authority

  Appeals received

  Appeals determined

  Appeals dismissed

  Epping Forest

  1994

  107

  90

  58

  1995

  91

  80

  51

  1996

  89

  68

  44

  1997

  88

  77

  56

  1998

  88

  78

  52

  1999

  105

  89

  55

  2000

  110

  76

  54

  Essex

  1994

  5

  3

  2

  1995

  5

  3

  2

  1996

  8

  3

  2

  1997

  2

  0

  0

  1998

  1

  1

  1

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  2000

  4

  1

  0

  Harlow

  1994

  13

  10

  6

  1995

  5

  5

  3

  1996

  10

  6

  3

  1997

  4

  3

  2

  1998

  10

  10

  8

  1999

  5

  5

  3

  2000

  2

  2

  1

  Maldon

  1994

  45

  36

  27

  1995

  43

  37

  23

  1996

  33

  31

  18

  1997

  37

  31

  12

  1998

  26

  22

  14

  1999

  51

  40

  27

  2000

  56

  44

  28

  Rochford

  1994

  29

  26

  14

  1995

  34

  28

  16

  1996

  51

  45

  31

  1997

  39

  31

  16

  1998

  40

  33

  23

  1999

  28

  21

  13

  2000

  38

  32

  20

  Southend

  1994

  0

  —

  0

  1995

  0

  —

  0

  1996

  2

  2

  0

  1997

  1

  1

  1

  1998

  29

  27

  16

  1999

  29

  28

  16

  2000

  41

  26

  16

  Southend-on-Sea

  1994

  45

  41

  25

  1995

  29

  25

  16

  1996

  36

  33

  17

  1997

  36

  30

  18

  1998

  2

  2

  2

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  Tendring

  1994

  64

  56

  39

  1995

  45

  39

  26

  1996

  24

  39

  26

  1997

  55

  47

  35

  1998

  47

  43

  28

  1999

  46

  43

  29

  2000

  56

  37

  23

  210W

  Year/ Local Planning authority

  Appeals received

  Appeals determined

  Appeals dismissed

  Thurrock

  1994

  24

  22

  16

  1995

  40

  35

  23

  1996

  38

  26

  19

  1997

  26

  21

  12

  1998

  37

  27

  15

  1999

  43

  39

  23

  2000

  43

  32

  19

  Uttlesford

  1994

  39

  35

  31

  1995

  54

  54

  39

  1996

  43

  40

  30

  1997

  42

  40

  26

  1998

  58

  54

  30

  1999

  64

  59

  33

  2000

  54

  36

  29

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to provide a bias in favour of conservation in future planning legislation. [150026]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our planning policy guidance note 1 "General Policy and Principles" reflects the Government's commitment to the principles of sustainable development. It advises that a sustainable planning framework should include provision for the nation's economic and social needs while conserving the cultural and natural heritage. Other planning policy guidance notes advise planning authorities on the extent to which they should take conservation issues into account in preparing development plans and in reaching decisions on planning applications. The weight that should be given to conservation issues relative to other material considerations in deciding a planning application is for the planning authority to determine in the first instance and will depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001, Official Report, column 528W, if he will review the operation of planning legislation with particular reference to the rights of objectors. [150129]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no immediate plans to change planning laws that would affect the current rights of objectors.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local authorities on making public pre-application discussions between planning officers and applicants or their representatives. [150128]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his previous questions on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 115W.

  Ailesey Flood Plain
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions what
  211W
  representations he has received concerning his Department's decision to permit building on the flood plain at Arlesey, Bedfordshire. [149879]

  Mr. Raynsford>
  The original decision to grant outline planning permission was made by a planning inspector. I have therefore asked the planning inspectorate's chief executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Highways Agency (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties are owned by the Highways Agency in the Hindhead area. [150303]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency currently owns 16 residential properties and one commercial property in the Hindhead area.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce disturbance from aircraft noise in the Waverley area; what representations he has received from the Quieter Skies Campaign with regard to the situation at Gatwick; and if he will make a statement. [150310]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Secretary of State regulates noise from operations at Gatwick under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These regulations include night restrictions, noise preferential routes, departures noise limits and operational procedures. They are reviewed as necessary, and we consult widely on any proposals for major change.

  My officials have responded to a number of letters and calls from members and supporters of the Quieter Skies Campaign. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), responded to points the right hon. lady raised on behalf of QSC in the Adjournment debate on 11 January last year, and in correspondence. More recently, on 1 February, officials attended a noise and track seminar organised by Gatwick Airport, at which Mr. John Burgess of QSC gave a presentation on the campaign's concerns, and I understand that a constructive discussion ensued.

  Traffic
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many lorries used major roads in(a) north-west England and (b) Merseyside on the most recent date for which figures are suitable. [150181]

  Mr. Hill
  The average daily flow of heavy goods vehicles on major roads in the north-west region in 1999 was about 1,700. The equivalent figure for the Merseyside region was 1,430.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in traffic speed on the trunk road network in the north-west of England over the last 12 months. [150092]
  212W
  Mr. Hill
  No systematic survey of trunk road speeds has been carried out over the past 12 months and it is not therefore possible to provide the information requested.

  A national survey of trunk road speeds was last carried out in 1998. The DETR publication, "Traffic Speeds on English Trunk Road: 1998", reported an overall reduction in speeds on the network, including the north-west, since a previous survey in 1995.

  The next survey is due to be undertaken this summer 2001 and results will become available in winter 2001. This will allow comparison of average speed in 2001 with those previously observed in 1998. It should be noted that the survey allows comparison of average speeds across the region. Due to the way the speeds are collected, however, the survey does not allow statistically reliable comparison at the detailed level of individual junctions on the network.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the percentage of householders on Merseyside who own and use(a) a car and (b) more than one car. [150132]

  Mr. Hill
  Averaged over the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000,(a) 71 per cent of households in the north-west have access to one or more cars, and (b) 27 per cent, have access to more than one car.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average expenditure on cars by households in Merseyside was in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [150094]

  Mr. Hill
  The average expenditure on motoring per car per week for people living in the north-west region was £51.10, averaged over the period 1979–98 to 1999–2000. Data are not available for Merseyside, or for single years, because of small sample sizes.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the value of the area cost adjustment, in calculating the education Standard Spending Assessment, for each local education authority in England; [150189]

  (2)pursuant to the answers of 8 February 2001, Official Report, columns 646–47W, how many and what proportion of (a) children of lone parents and (b) children of Income Support and income based Job Seeker's Allowance claimants are used in the education SSA calculation for local authorities in England; [150299]

  (3)pursuant to the answers of 8 February 2001, Official Report, columns 646–47W, what ethnicity indicator was used in the education SSA calculation, for local authorities in England. [150298]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information has been placed in the library.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answers of 8 February 2001, Official
  213W
  Report, columns 646–47W, which service provision costs are higher in London and the south-east than in Worcestershire. [150300]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The higher cost of service provision in London and the south-east are reflected in the area cost adjustment, which takes into account the higher employment costs and rate costs there compared to the rest of the country, including Worcestershire.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the SSA per head of population for Cambridgeshire, expressed in real terms, for each year since 1990–91. [150802]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  SSA per head figures for the old county council, the new county council and the unitary authority of Peterborough, in real terms, are as follows:

  SSA per hand (in real terms)

  Cambridgeshire

  Year

  (Old)

  (New)

  Peterborough

  1990–91

  639.66

  —

  —

  1991–92

  705.04

  —

  —

  1992–93

  724.13

  —

  —

  1993–94

  662.30

  —

  —

  1994–95

  677.27

  —

  —

  1995–96

  623.54

  —

  —

  1996–97

  634.57

  —

  —

  1997–98

  619.26

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  586.50

  874.07

  1999–2000

  —

  594.58

  893.25

  2000–01

  —

  601.27

  918.87

  2001–02

  —

  608.21

  939.64

  There are a number of discontinuities in the figures. The most important changes are the transfer of funding of colleges of further education and sixth-form colleges from local authorities to the Further Education Funding Council on 1 April 1993, the transfer of policing responsibilities from county councils to the new police authorities on 1 April 1995 and the establishment of the Peterborough unitary authority on 1 April 1998. The figures for Peterborough cover both lower and upper tier services; in the remainder of Cambridgeshire lower tier services are provided by the district councils.

  Higher Education (Access)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he received on the contents of the Education and Employment Committee's report on access to higher education, and the proceedings of the Committee prior to the publication of the report. [150053]

  Ms Beverley Hughes>
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), on 14 February 2001, Official Report, column 162W.

  Road Safety and Cycling
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policies to promote(a) cycling and (b) road safety. [150317]
  214W
  Mr. Hill
  The Government are committed to tripling the number of cycling trips from a 2,000 base by 2010 and quadrupling them from a 1996 base by 2012. £8.4 billion of Government funding has been provided to local authorities in the recent local transport settlement. This will help to promote sustainable transport measures, including cycling. The cycling strategies included in the authorities' local transport plans (LTPs) should identify gaps in the local cycle network and improvements to the cycling infrastructure. Initial monitoring suggests that the strategies will result in considerable additional provision for cycling.

  We have taken the initiative in marketing the main messages of the national cycling strategy. Early outcomes are the launch of an NCS website, development of a promotional video and, during spring 2001, a number of cycling seminars throughout England aimed at local authorities, major employers and health and education practitioners.

  We set out our policies for pursuing the Government's road safety strategy in "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", which was launched on 1 March last year. It sets a new target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads by 40 per cent. by the year 2010, a separate target of 50 per cent. for children, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the slight casualty rate.

  Special measures for cyclists are detailed in chapters two and nine of the strategy, but measures described elsewhere, particularly on driver training, will be to their benefit.

  Copies of "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" are in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Greenbelt Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications for developments involving the loss of green belt land were(a) notified to him and (b) called in for his own decision in each year since 1992. [150198]

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

  Mobile Phone Base Stations
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the revised guidelines governing the planning process for mobile phone base stations will be published. [150180]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations have been received in response to his Department's consultation on the scope of possible changes to the planning process for mobile phone base stations. [150179]
  215W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In response to the recent consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to telecommunications masts and associated guidance my Department received 365 responses from hon. Members, members of the public, local authorities, mobile phone companies and associated businesses, and other interested organsations.

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his policy strategy integration division was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many. Regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150363]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The policy strategy integration division was established in September 1998. It presently has a full-time staff of seven, including one secondee from a local authority and one agency secretary. No special advisers participate in its work. The aim of the division is to facilitate a cross-cutting approach to issues which span policy areas, both within DETR and between DETR and others, rather than to produce reports. It has, however, led a review of the organisation of transport safety, and an account of the consultation and of the review group's analysis was placed in the House Libraries and made available on request. Also in the libraries is a report which the division prepared on transport links between the UK and Ireland for the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body. A memorandum on DETR's role in relation to public health was co-ordinated by the division and sent to the Health Committee in January this year.

  Farm Accidents (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents occurred on farms in Lancashire involving the(a)death and (b) injury of a (i) farm w orker and (ii) member of the public in each year since 1995. [150200]

  Mr. Meacher
  Injuries on farms in Lancashire as reported to HSE and local authorities:

  Employment status

  Fatality

  Major/hon fatal injury

  Over 3 day injury

  Total

  1996–97

  Workers

  2

  21

  22

  45

  Members of the public

  0

  1

  4—

  1

  1997–98

  Workers

  1

  18

  22

  41

  Members of the public

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  1998–99

  Workers

  0

  14

  27

  41

  Members of the public

  1

  0

  4—

  1

  216W

  Employment status

  Fatality

  Major/non fatal injury

  Over 3 day injury

  Total

  1999–20001

  Workers

  0

  17

  18

  35

  Members of the public

  1

  3

  4—

  4

  2000–011

  Workers

  2

  3—

  3—

  2

  Members of the public

  0

  3—

  3—

  0

  Grand total

  7

  74

  89

  170

  1 Provisional

  2 To 31 December 2000—highly provisional

  3 Not available

  4 Not applicable

  Petrol
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into the factors considered by consumers when choosing whether to buy standard unleaded petrol or low sulphur petrol. [150111]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: My Department has not commissioned any specific research into consumer purchasing decisions concerning cleaner specifications of petrol. However, market research by oil companies and consumer organisations—confirmed by the experience of introducing ultra-low sulphur diesel—indicates that most road users will not choose a cleaner specification of fuel if it has a higher retail price then the conventional specification.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what incentives the Government have provided to consumers to buy low sulphur petrol in preference to standard unleaded petrol. [150112]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: A 1 p/1 fuel duty differential for ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSP) relative to conventional unleaded petrol was introduced in October 2000. The Chancellor announced in the November 2000 pre-Budget report that this duty differential would be increased to 3 p/1 in the 2001 Budget, subject to oil companies ensuring nationwide availability.

  Air Transport Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had in the EU about proposals for new taxes on(a) aviation fuel, (b) airport departures and landings and (c) air traffic movements. [150399]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Possible measures to encourage the reduction of emissions from aircraft, including the possibility of a fuel tax, have been discussed in the EU within the last two years. No proposals have been tabled on this, nor have new taxes been proposed on the other aviation activities cited.

  Urban Regeneration
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he will use in determining the selection of urban regeneration companies; and what timetable has been adopted. [150395]
  217W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  New criteria are being drafted to set out the principles guiding the effective structure and operation of urban regeneration companies (URCs). These criteria have been issued in draft to the regional development agencies (RDAs) and others and will be finalised shortly taking into account comments received. The criteria are based on the lessons identified from the monitoring and evaluation of the three pilot URCs in Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield. RDAs and their partners will use the criteria and accompanying guidance to consider whether a URC might be appropriate for key regeneration areas within their regions. Proposals for new URCs will be considered by the Department against these criteria. The urban White Paper announced a rolling programme of around 12 new URCs over the next two to three years.

  Road Crash Victims
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the organisations to which he gave grants for the support of those killed as a result of road crashes, and the amount per organisation, for each of the last three years for which figures are available; [150560]

  (2) if he will list the organisations he gave grants for the support of those injured in road crashes, and the amount per organisation, for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [150561]

  Mr. Hill
  Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives the Secretary of State for Transport powers to grant-aid bodies, other than local authorities, to promote road safety. The legislation does not provide powers for the Secretary of State to give grants to support those affected by deaths or injuries as a result of road traffic accidents.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the extent is of delays for the installation of new central heating systems under the home energy efficiency scheme; what the reasons are for such delays; and if he will make a statement. [150416]

  Mr. Meacher
  The new home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) for England was launched on 1 June 2000. It is managed by two regional scheme managers who are responsible for marketing the scheme and surveying homes to identify the improvements required. Once these are agreed with the householder, a works order is placed with local contractors. The time taken between the date of survey and the actual installation of gas central heating systems varies across the country, although in most parts it is less than three months.

  The reason for the delay is the national shortage of qualified heating engineers which has severely affected the rate at which central heating systems are being installed under HEES. To address the problem, scheme managers both continue to seek additional qualified heating installers and to encourage existing installers to increase the number of installation teams dedicated to HEES.
  218W
  While these efforts have cut waiting times, the referral-based nature of the scheme means that this period can change rapidly. For example a large number of applications from a locality can substantially increase waiting times in the area. Both scheme managers continue to advise local groups of the period of delay in each area, and to display this information on their websites.

  The longer-term solution to the problem is to increase the number of trained gas engineers. In conjunction with Transco plc and the gas industry national training organisation, we have introduced training programmes to provide an additional 400 gas engineers each six months to work under HEES. As these engineers become available, so the present delays should be reduced substantially and the scheme be better able to cope with short-term fluctuations in demand.

  Capital Debt (London Boroughs)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each London borough, the level of capital debt held for housing purposes. [150548]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Local authorities generally pool their debt across services but are required to calculate a notional credit ceiling for housing for the purposes of maintaining a separate housing revenue account (HRA). The table shows the provisional HRA figures for 2000–01.

  £

  Authority

  Mid-Year HRA Credit Ceiling

  2000–01

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  49,400,000

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  277,886,205

  Bromley

  68,895,835

  Camden

  503,204,837

  City of London

  13,274,131

  Croydon

  94,300,000

  Ealing

  158,924,209

  Enfield

  78,870,754

  Greenwich

  403,379,530

  Hackney

  637,640,950

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  220,335,811

  Haringey

  392,220,652

  Harrow

  41,398,133

  Havering

  16,500,114

  Hillingdon

  39,943,958

  Hounslow

  161,259,467

  Islington

  710,121,313

  Kensington and Chelsea

  130,004,049

  Kingston upon Thames

  16,844,159

  Lambeth

  623,053,791

  Lewisham

  407,284,864

  Merton

  21,200,414

  Newham

  433,684,444

  Redbridge

  16,081,636

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Southwark

  732,105,357

  Sutton

  20,256,848

  Tower Hamlets

  533,646,000

  Waltham Forest

  181,085,745

  Wandsworth

  116,373,024

  Westminster

  171,500,000

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have been caused by road accidents in the United Kingdom as a result of drivers being under the influence of illegal substances, broken down by each illegal substance used. [150454]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no reliable statistics available that show the number of fatalities and injuries caused by road accidents as a result of drivers being under the influence of illegal substances. However, we will shortly publish the findings of a 3-year survey into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities, which will provide data on this subject.

  Wafic Said Business School
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations were received by(a) him and (b) his officials from (i) other Government Ministers and (ii) their officials over (A) his decision and (B) the time scale of his decision, on whether to call in the proposal to build the Wafic Said business school in Oxford. [150360]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our records include no representations from other Government Ministers or officials about the Wafic Said business school in Oxford.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received from the Economic Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority on the economic regulatory regime for the services which will be provided in the Oceanic sector by the National Air Traffic Services Ltd. public-private partnership; and if he will make a statement. [151110]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Air traffic services in Oceanic airspace are provided on a monopoly basis. When the National Air Traffic Services Ltd. public-private partnership is established, charges for these services will be subject to price regulation by the RPI-X method, which is the standard model for monopoly regulation in the United Kingdom. The charge cap, or "X" factor, will be set for a period of five years and will, for the first five year-period only, be set by the Government.

  We received advice from the CAA in August, which set out how they proposed to approach the economic regulation of NATS and recommended that the "X" factor for NATS' Oceanic services be set at 10 per cent. for the first year and 2 per cent. for each of the next four years. We have considered the CAA's advice carefully, alongside representations from air users who will pay these charges and from NATS, who have also provided revised estimates of traffic levels and system costs which have a significant effect on the first year of the quinquennium. We have consequently decided to set a cap of 2 per cent. for each of the five years, and that there should be no delay penalty term for the present.

  The Government regard investment in the Oceanic sector as important and believe that the approach to charge control should reflect this We have therefore agreed with the CAA that they should be receptive to any
  220W
  proposals, made with the support of air users, to revisit the price cap when investment is made with a view to significant improvements in the service.

  Bus Subsidies
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest round of the rural bus challenge competition and on allocations to local authorities of rural bus subsidy grant for the coming year. [151108]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement on these matters next week. Copies of the announcement will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Authority Publicity
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to lay before Parliament proposed alterations to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. [151192]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following consultation with the Local Government Association, we have today laid before the House a draft of the proposed alterations to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. These proposed alterations reflect the new council constitutions and the introduction of referendums and petitions under the Local Government Act 2000.

  We also intend in the future to review further the code, having regard to councils' experiences of operating their new constitutions over a reasonable period of time. This further review will also cover the code's application to those authorities—such as police authorities—which are not adopting new constitutions.

  Ordnance Survey
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when a quinquennial review of Ordnance Survey will be conducted. [151233]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  All executive agencies and non-departmental government bodies are subject to a review of their organisation every five years to examine and recommend the most appropriate organisation for delivering the functions and services currently carried out by the Department.

  The last such review of Ordnance Survey reported in 1994 and recommended that Ordnance Survey should continue to deliver its functions and services as an executive agency and Government Department in its own right.

  A Quinquennial Review of Ordnance Survey was due to take place in 1999. However, the Secretary of State at that time agreed that the review should be postponed until now to allow for Ordnance Survey's new trading fund status to bed in.

  The review of Ordnance Survey commences today and is expected to last for three months. The review team, CMG Admiral, has been appointed following a competitive tendering process. A steering group, chaired

  221W
  by the principal finance officer of my Department, will oversee the review and recommendations will be made to me in due course. I will report back to the House on its findings before the summer recess.

  The review process will provide extensive opportunities for consultation with internal and external stakeholders and will follow the procedures recommended in the guidance for the review of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies published by the Cabinet Office.

  Millennium Dome
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a decision on the continuation of the preferred bidder status of Legacy plc. [151234]

  Ms Armstrong
  Legacy's preferred bidder status gave them exclusive negotiating rights up to 14 February. While their bid has made progress towards meeting the preferred bidder terms, they have not met them. Legacy's exclusivity has therefore expired and the Government have decided to terminate the existing competition.

  During the period of Legacy's preferred bidder status, the Government have not sought any alternative proposals for the dome. The Government would now like openly to test the market and will therefore ask English Partnerships to invite any interested parties to lodge with them expressions of interest for the dome and the regeneration of the peninsula. The Government, like the Mayor of London and the London borough of Greenwich, believe the dome should be retained as part of the regenerated peninsula, and offers will be invited on this basis. There have been considerable expressions of interest from other parties, which have been logged by English Partnerships.

  Within this framework, Legacy will of course be able to put forward their proposals, which will be fully considered on merit alongside others.

  Expressions of interest will be assessed by an advisory team, which will report to English Partnerships. They will shortly publish details of the arrangements and rules for this process.

  Railway Bridges
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding has been made available to Railtrack to repair unsafe railway bridge structures in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [150107]

  Mr. Hill
  In the past five years, the only grant paid direct to Railtrack was £34 million towards the cost of maintaining level crossings, paid in 1995–96 when the company was still in the public sector. Since its privatisation in 1996, the company has recovered that cost, and other costs including the cost of repairing unsafe railway bridge structures, through access charges paid by passenger train operating companies and freight operating companies. So, although no grant has been paid direct to 222W
  the company since 1996, its profitability is contingent on public money. Some 90 per cent. of its income is paid to it in access charges, a substantial proportion of which are supported by public money.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contacts(a) he and (b) his officials had with the Hinduja family and their business associates during his visits to India in March and December 1999. [148509]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend's visits to India in March and December 1999 promoted Indo-British bilateral relations, business and trade co-operation, and the sharing of experience on environment and urban issues. On both visits my right hon. Friend met the Indian Prime Minister, other Indian Ministers and a number of British and Indian business men and women. This included a courtesy meeting between my right hon. Friend, accompanied by officials, and Messers. G. P. and S. P. Hinduja in Mumbai in March 1999.

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149271]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The Department's financial year starts 1 April and runs to 31 March. For each financial year from 1996 the advertising and public opinion research spend are set out. There was no expenditure on direct mail.

  £

  Television Advertising

  1996–97

  3,836,887

  1997–98

  3,154,027

  1998–99

  3,449,938

  1999–2000

  7,457,172

  2000–011

  9,858,387

  Radio Advertising

  1996–97

  461,937

  1997–98

  926,232

  1998–99

  1,048,951

  1999–2000

  661,303

  2000–011

  2,163,822

  Press Advertising

  1996–97

  1,741,197

  1997–98

  1,559,001

  1998–99

  861,097

  1999–2000

  1,059,974

  2000–011

  663,396

  Other Advertising (eg posters, leaflets)

  1996–97

  1,178,979

  1997–98

  860,740

  1998–99

  640,014

  1999–2000

  2,821,551

  2000–011

  1,314,395

  223W

  £

  Total Advertising Spend

  1996–97

  7,219,000

  1997–98

  6,500,000

  1998–99

  6,000,000

  1999–2000

  12,000,000

  2000–011

  14,000,000

  Public Opinion Research

  1996–97

  264,492

  1997–98

  299,358

  1998–99

  281,379

  1999–2000

  801,600

  2000–01 1

  357,410

  1 planned

  The increased expenditure on advertising and research in 1999–2000 results from:

  (i) An increase of £3.6 million on the "Are you doing your bit" campaign to help people to take action to protect the environment; and

  (ii) £2.9 million spent on a campaign to encourage voting in the Greater London Authority elections.

  The increase in planned expenditure in 2000–01 results from:

  (i) An additional increase of £2 million on the "Are you doing your bit" campaign; and

  (ii) A £4 million increase on the campaign aimed at further reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

  Government Initiatives (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle; and if he will make a Statement. [149906]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The constituency of Pendle has benefited from a range of Government Initiatives since May 1997, including:

  Capital allocations for housing

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  2.0

  1998–99

  2.3

  1999–2000

  2.4

  2000–01

  3.0

  2001–02

  3.6

  Under the Government's first comprehensive spending review, Pendle received significantly more resources for housing. For the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 the authority received more than £1.5 million over and above its normal HIP allocation through the capital receipts initiative (when resources distributed under the CRI were identified separately) and in the current year the authority's total allocation rose again by a further 27 per cent. Following the spending review 2000, the amount allocated to the authority for housing next year totals over £3.7 million. This compares to a figure of £2.015 million which had been allocated in 1997–98.

  Also in 2000, measures were announced enabling authorities to support the renovation and improvement of private sector housing in a more targeted way. We also announced our intention to proceed with more
  224W
  fundamental reforms to the legislation to give authorities more effective powers to turn around areas of low demand and unpopular housing.

  Single Regeneration Budget:

  SRB Round 2—The Way Ahead—Pendle

  A six-year strategy to arrest decline caused by contraction of the manufacturing industry. The two main themes are for developing business opportunities and developing people. With diversification the aim is to create a stronger, less vulnerable economy. A private sector-led partnership with involvement of the community.

  SRB total—£9.3 million (scheme period 1996–97 to 2001–02)

  SRB Round 4—Pendle Youth Focus—Kick Start for jobs

  A seven-year scheme to tackle low educational attainment and high unemployment among 16–24-year-olds in Pendle by working with local employers to identify skill needs. It will provide dedicated training and assistance in accessing jobs.

  SRB total £2.6 million (scheme period 1998–99 to 2004–05)

  SRB Round 5—Pendle—Opening Doors, Unlocking Opportunities

  This seven-year scheme targets the five most deprived wards in Pendle. It aims to support community capacity building and enterprise, improve skill levels, health and access to jobs.

  SRB total—£16 million (scheme period 1999–2000 to 2005–06)

  SRB Round 6—The Time is Now for Nelson, Pendle

  A seven-year scheme targeting Central Nelson and Brierfield. It aims to support planning housing improvements in Nelson with a package of measures to improve health, reduce crime, improve the local environment and encourage new small business.

  SRB total—£12 million (scheme period 2000–01 to 2006–07)

  Local Transport Plans

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  111

  1998–99

  18

  1999–2000

  110

  2000–01

  211

  2001–02

  28

  1 These figures are for Lancashire County Council's Transport Policies and Programmes allocation.

  2 This figure is from Lancashire County Council's Provision Local Transport Plan settlement.

  It is not possible to determine exactly how much of these amounts has been spent on the Pendle constituency. The constituency has benefited from Lancashire County Council's integrated transport policies.

  European Funding

  The East Lancashire Partnership (ELP) comprises representatives interest from the six local authority districts of East Lancashire, including Pendle.

  Under the GMLC programme, ELP was allocated some £10.65 million grant (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF)) for

  225W
  a range of business support and vocational training activities. Pendle was a significant beneficiary of this overall resource.

  In addition, Pendle was allocated a £5 million ERDF grant for Nelson town centre initiatives.

  Community economic development support totalling £1.2 million grant has been allocated for Nelson and the Waterside and Brierfields Wards.

  The resources detailed must be drawn down by the end of December 2001.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Pendle will receive the following indicative funding over the next three years:

  Year

  £ million

  2001–02

  0.98

  2002–03

  1.47

  2003–04

  1.96

  New Commitment to Regeneration

  There is one pathfinder in East Lancashire, which includes Pendle.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce proposals to amend the Wales departmental expenditure limit for 2000–01. [151101]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £18,450,000 from £7,808,235,000 to £7,826,685,000. The increase is a result of:

  (i) the take up of end year flexibility entitlement of £5,408,000

  (ii) net transfers from other Government Departments of £1,645,000

  (iii) additional support for flood defence of £118,000 resulting from the Environment, Transport and Regions Minister's autumn 2000 statement, an additional £10,195,000 for education resulting from the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement, and take up of an allocation of £1,084,000 from the Modernising Government Fund

  The increase includes the following transfers:

  (i) £112,000 from Home Office for the Partnership Development Fund;

  (ii) £131,000 from Home Office for the Drug Prevention Advisory Service;

  (iii) £57,000 to Scottish Executive for Out of Area Treatments;

  (iv) £512,000 from Department of Health for Out of Area Treatments;

  (v) £92,000 to Department of Health for Medical Training Costs;

  (vi) £1,000 from the Northern Ireland Executive for Out of Area Treatments:

  (vii) £19,000 from Home Office for Youth Justice Board work;

  (viii) £146,000 from Intervention Board for Slaughter Premium inspection costs;

  (ix) £10,000 from Home Office for Youth Justice Board inspection costs;

  226W

  (x) £43,000 to Home Office for the Crime Reduction Team; and

  (xi) £906,000 from DTI for the Phoenix Fund

  The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departmental Expenditure Limits or from the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly concerning the future of steel production at Llanwern; and if he will make a statement. [149923]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues including the future of the Llanwern plant.

  It is well known that I believe the proposal to end steelmaking at Llanwern is a short-sighted one. I have urged the company to reconsider its position and I know that the Trade Unions are presenting their own proposals for the company's consideration. However, if the threatened closures go ahead, the Government and the National Assembly have made it clear that we shall both take appropriate steps to assist those affected.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of the assistance package offered to the Corns Steel company, prior to the announcement of job losses on 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [150251]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 13 February 2001): The UK Government and the Assembly indicated a willingness to talk to Corns about whether any action on their part would assist the company. As Corus did not wish to engage in such discussions, the Government were unable to make any offer of assistance.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans he has to amend the Law Officers' Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for 2000–01. [151100]

  The Solicitor-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class V, Vote 4 (The Crown Prosecution Service), Class V, Vote 5 (Serious Fraud Office) and Class V, Vote 6 (HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor) the Attorney-General's Departments Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £8,823,000 from £369,547,000 to £378,370,000.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £4,438,000 from £343,790,000 to £348,228,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £2,504,000 from £245,165,000 to £247,669,000. This increase is required to fund delivery of the pledge on persistent youth offenders, deployment of Higher Court Advocates in the Crown court, diversity and equality issues and achieve improvements against

  227W
  CPS and CJS targets. An increase in capital expenditure of £500,000 will be used to fund the introduction of joint CPS/police criminal justice and trial units.

  The Serious Fraud Office's Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £17,486,000 from £1,833,000 to £19,319,000. The Running Costs Limit will increase by £611,000 from £11,324,000 to £11,935,000. The increase is required to fund the impact in 2000–01 of the decision to increase the office's targeted case load to 100 cases in 2003–04; to meet the cost of trials held over from 1999–2000; and to offset reductions in police resources available to combat serious and complex fraud. Capital expenditure will increase by £34,000.

  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £552,000 from £8,271,000 to £8,823,000. The Running Costs Limit will increase by £1,550,000 from £6,432,000 to £7,982,000. The increase in net running costs is due to an increase in capital charge following a revaluation of TDS's premises (Queen Anne's Chambers). The increase is offset by a matching non-running cost receipt. Capital expenditure will increase by £294,000.

  A transfer of £250,000 will be made to the Attorney-General's Departments Departmental Unallocated Provision from the Modernising Government Fund and a transfer of £1,750,000 will be made to the Attorney-General's Departments Departmental Unallocated Provision from the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  The increases will be partly offset by transfers totalling £1,206,000 from the Home Office, surrender of £4,565,000 of the Attorney-General's Departments end year flexibility, an allocation of £500,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund and an allocation of £250,000 from the Modernising Government Fund.

  The remainder of the expenditure will be charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will publish for each constituency in Scotland her latest estimate of the number of(a) male and (b) female (i) lone parents, (ii) pensioners, (iii) people in receipt of DSS benefits, and (iv) female unemployed persons, (A) under the age of 18 years, (B) aged 18 to 24 years and (C) aged over 24 wears, (I) pensioners qualifying for the free TV licence and (II) households qualifying for the £200 winter fuel allowance. [146986]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the House Library.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals there are to amend the Scotland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [151111]
  228W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIII, Vote 1, Scotland and Transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2000–01 will be increased by £77,265,000 from £15,305,728,000 to £15,382,993,000.

  The changes in the DEL include the following:

  a draw forward of £32,000,000 from 2001–02 for European structural funds;

  an increase of £23,031,000 for the cost of the Lockerbie trial; an increase of £2,300,000 for additional funding for forestry;

  £206,000 for the cost of flood damage and coastal work;

  £1,738,000 from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund;

  £40,000 for the Employment coalition;

  £800,000 for the costs of Kosovo refugees; and

  £17,893,000 previously announced in the Pre-Budget Report for education.

  Also included in the revised Departmental Expenditure Limit are transfers to and from other Government Departments amounting to a net decrease of £743,000. These include:

  (i) £5,100,000 from the Home Office for the costs of asylum seekers;

  (ii) £1,576,000 from DTI for the Phoenix fund;

  (iii) £5,014,000 to INEE for Open University payments;

  (iv) £1,870,000 to MAFF for the cattle traceability scheme;

  (v) £1,250,000 to the Department. of Health for Reserved Health bodies;

  (vi) £252,000 from the Northern Ireland Executive for Out of Area treatments;

  (vii) £289,000 from the Cabinet Office for telecommunications costs;

  (viii) £160,000 to DSS for intercalating students;

  (ix) £57,000 from National Assembly for Wales for Out of Area treatments;

  (x) £78,000 to the Home Office for the Animal Rights index;

  (xi) £342,000 to MAFF for the BSE inquiry;

  (xii) £46,000 to MAFF for the Marine Coastguard agency;

  (xiii) £750,000 from DETR for track access grants; and

  (xiv) £7,000 to Home Office for GRECO (European Commission for the Prevention of Corruption).

  The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departmental Expenditure Limits or from the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland what advice she has given on the development of the proposed International Criminal Court. [149841]

  The Advocate-General
  This Government have strongly supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court. I cannot, however, give the information requested. By long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments, neither the existence nor content of Law Officers' advice is normally disclosed outside Government. There seems no reason to depart from the convention on this occasion.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his planning department was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the department on a full-time basis. [150371]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has carried out a planning function in some form for many years. Since 1998 the planning branch has been a discrete unit within the Department's Finance Division. Prior to that it was part of a separate Planning and Communications Division. The planning branch writes the Department's annual departmental report, which is published by the Stationery Office and placed on the Department's website. In spring 2001 it will produce the departmental business plan.

  No departmental or non-departmental advisers participate in this work. There are no non-departmental staff involved in this work. The planning branch consists of five full-time departmental staff and one part-timer.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Special Adviser working for the Lord Chancellor will relinquish his post when the next general election is called. [149313]

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when her Department expects(a) to reply to letters of 27 October 2000, 13 November 2000 and 12 December 2000 from Beeney and Co., Reigate, on behalf of Mrs. Nicola Morrison, a constituent, and (b) to achieve enforcement of the maintenance order given under case no. 1988-D-257 in Australia under the terms of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. [150201]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders section of the Department forwarded the letters of 27 October 2000, 13 November 2000 and 12 December 2000 from Messrs. Beeney and Co. to the Australian authorities asking for news of the case, in the usual manner. Unfortunately, notification of this was not given to Beeney and Co. The Department has now acknowledged receipt of the correspondence.

  It is for the Australian authorities to decide how to enforce this maintenance order in Australia.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Bermuda
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received from the Government of Bermuda about proposed constitutional changes; and if she will make a statement. [149996]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In December 2000, HMG received a list of proposed constitutional changes from the Government of Bermuda, through the Governor's Office. These, and suggestions for amendments to the constitution from other sources, are under consideration. HMG takes their responsibility to the people of Bermuda seriously and will not agree to changes to the constitution without due deliberation.

  People's Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the ethnic backgrounds of applicants for a people's peerage. [150918]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the information requested is as follows:

  Indian origin—4 per cent.

  Pakistan origin—2 per cent.

  Bangladeshi—less than 1 per cent.

  East African—less than 1 per cent.

  Chinese—less than 1 per cent.

  Other Asian—1 per cent.

  Caribbean—1 per cent.

  African—1 per cent.

  Other Black origin—less than 1 per cent.

  White—85 per cent.

  Other ethnic origin—2 per cent.

  Not Specified—1 per cent.

  The 15 per cent. non-white applications compares with 2.6 per cent. ethnic minority representation in the present House of Lords, and 5.5 per cent. in the population as whole.

  Crown Appointments
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 332W, to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) if, in the discussion with the Shrievalty Association, she will seek arrangements to ensure (a) that in the cases of nominations for High Sheriff of persons who have been politically active, those nominations do not arise predominatly from any one political party and (b) that those nominated are not required to have sufficient means to meet the expenses of the office from their own resources. [149564]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Shrievalty is a non-political office, and any person nominated who has been politically active is required to refrain from local or national political activity during his or her year as Sheriff. Provision is made for funding statutory functions performed through Under-Sheriffs and for certain other functions. There are no plans to fund further the non-statutory activities of
  231W
  Sheriffs from public resources. The extent to which Sheriffs wish to incur personal expenditure on additional activities is a matter for individual decision.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Special Advisers working for him will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149321]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  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.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if Millennium Commission funds may be used to pay compensation for costs incurred in bidding for the dome site in the event of the failure of negotiations. [149342]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: The Millennium Commission, as providers of grant from the national lottery to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), has not underwritten bidders costs in relation to the competition for the sale of the dome. The rules of that competition makes no provision for meeting the costs of unsuccessful bidders.

  Departmental Grants (Vale of Clwyd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants his Department has made to organisations in the Vale of Clwyd since the general election. [149786]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: This Department has made no grants to organisations in the Vale of Clwyd since the general election. However, according to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 101 national lottery awards to the Vale Clwyd, totalling £6,607,271, since 1 May 1997. I have placed copies of a table showing the details of these awards in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what incentives the Government make available to farmers to encourage tourism in the English countryside. [150131]

  Janet Anderson
  The England rural development programme's rural enterprise scheme will help farmers and others to develop tourism and craft initiatives in order to assist in the development of more sustainable, diversified and enterprising rural economies and communities. Rural England will receive, in total, around £152 million of rural enterprise scheme funding from April 2001 to the end of 2006. The programme's agri-environment measures also help to promote tourism by encouraging farmers to conserve and enhance the 232W
  intrinsic attractiveness of English landscapes. Similar funding arrangements exist for areas classified as objective 1 for European structural funds support.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what incentives are provided to local residents in rural tourist resorts to encourage them to promote tourism in their town; and to whom these incentives are targeted. [150093]

  Janet Anderson
  A range of funding bodies and sources is available to assist rural communities and the rural economy, including in relation to tourism. The regional development agencies support a broad range of projects generated by local partnerships and voluntary groups to address regeneration through the single regeneration budget, the capital investment fund and their rural development programme. Support is also available from the Countryside Agency and the European structural funds. The EU LEADER+ programme will complement these mainstream programmes by piloting integrated bottom-up rural development strategies developed and implemented by local community action groups. The programme aims to help rural communities to help themselves in developing a sustainable rural economy, which may include sustainable tourism based on local distinctiveness. Rural England will receive around £32 million of LEADER+ funding from 2001 to the end of 2006.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent by tourists visiting rural areas of north-west England in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [150133]

  Janet Anderson
  Spending by domestic and overseas tourists visiting the two regional tourist board areas in north-west England was as follows:

  £ million

  1998

  1999

  North West Tourist Board

  1,393

  1,595

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  429

  600

  Separate figures for rural areas are not kept, but the North West Tourist Board estimates that approximately 56 per cent. of spend was in rural areas, while the Cumbria Tourist Board estimates that approximately 79 per cent. of spend was in rural areas.

  Figures for 2000 are not yet available.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the prospects for opening the new stadium at Wembley. [150337]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: I understand the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. are currently holding discussions with their financial advisers on when to restart the process of loan syndication. The timing of this is entirely a matter for them.

  Regional Film Theatres
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to
  233W
  ensure that publicly funded regional film theatres do not compete unfairly with the purely commercial sector; and if he will make a statement. [150544]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Regional film theatres tend to show a wider range of films than commercial cinemas. Public funds also support screenings for minority audiences or for educational purposes and in rural areas. There are also initiatives between public and commercial sectors aimed at making available a broader programme at mainstream cinemas. I am not aware of any difficulties arising from these longstanding policies. The Film Council is developing a strategy for cinema exhibition which it aims to complete by September, building on the work of the British Film Institute.

  Digital TV (Audio-described Programmes)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he plans to make available to blind and partially sighted people equipment for the reception of audio described programmes for digital TV. [150270]

  Janet Anderson
  No. The Government's role is to set the legislative framework within which audio description and other services for people with sensory impairments can be provided. Requiring broadcasters to meet statutory targets is the most effectve and practicable way to ensure the provision and expansion of these services. We have recently announced plans to increase the target for subtitling on digital terrestrial television (DTT) to 80 per cent. of programming and to extend the current targets for subtitling, signing and audio description on DTT to digital cable and digital satellite when legislation permits. We also introduced half-price television licences for the blind last April.

  Creative Partnerships
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to make an announcement on creative partnerships. [151191]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On Wednesday 21 February, I will announce the locations in which my Department plans to develop creative partnership pilots: an initiative which will provide sustained opportunities for schools to work in partnership with creative arts organisations and individuals. I will also give details of the local consultation that will begin in these areas to determine the partners involved. Copies of this announcement will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flood Defences (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total expenditure on improving flood defences in the Soar Valley since the Easter 1998 floods. [149998]

  Mr. Morley
  In addition to their own expenditure of £156.000, the Environment Agency estimates that local authorities have spent approximately £1 million on improving flood defences in the Soar Valley since Easter 1998.
  234W
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Fooc how much has been spent by the Environment Agency on improving the flood defences in(a) Leicestershire and (b) the Soar Valley since Easter 1998. [149997]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that since Easter 1998 the Environment Agency has spent some £840,000 on improving flood defences and warnings in Leicestershire, of which £156,000 was spent in the Soar Valley. In addition some £350,000 a year is spent on maintenance.

  Fishing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual revenue generated by commercial fishing in the west country in each of the last three years. [149549]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Following are the landings by the UK fleet into Devon, Cornwall and the Scilly Isles for the calendar years 1998–2000.

  Year

  £ million

  1998

  67.34

  1999

  53.79

  2000

  58.49

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals there are to amend the Forestry Commission Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [151102]

  Mr. Morley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class X, Vote 3 (Forestry Commission), the Forestry Commission Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £4,100,000, form £76,065,000 to £80,165,000. The increase is required to meet the net cost of a fall in receipts from sales of timber offset by savings in other net expenditure. The increase will be a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the gross running cost control and Departmental Expenditure Limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board for 2000–01. [151232]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Gross Running Cost Control Limit for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be decreased by £9,605,000 from £316,371,000 to £306,766,000 and the Gross Running Cost Control Limit for the Intervention Board will be increased by £954,000 from £70,092,000 to £71,046,000.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board's joint Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £101,326,000 from £1,362,859,000 to £1,464,185,000.

  The increase is the net effect of an Intervention Board (IB) increase of £83,884,000 comprising administration transfers of £980,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and £120,000 from HM Customs and

  235W
  Excise and a transfer of £146,000 to the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department; and increases in programme provision of £71,489,000 for the Over Thirty Months Scheme (BSE), £398,000 for the Selective Cull Scheme (BSE) and £11,043,000 for Dairy Agrimonetary Compensation; and a net MAFF increase of £17,442,000 comprising an increase of £1,646,000 for the BSE Inquiry—funded by transfers from the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive and the National Assembly for Wales; £2 million for flood defence works—being part of the £51 million Flood Defence package announced on 23 November 2000; £1.87 million from the Scottish Executive as a contribution to the development costs of web-based access to Cattle Traceability Scheme data; and £14.5 million in respect of the Agrimonetary Compensation scheme for Arable Area Payments announced on 2 November 2000. These increases are offset by net transfers to the DETR of £41,000 in respect of work carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA); £654,000 to the Department of Health in respect of surveillance work on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs); £470,000 to the Cabinet Office for Government Pathway costs; and a decrease of £429,000 in net provision for the Centre for Environment. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) resulting from projects under the Wider Markets Initiative.

  Within the DEL there will be a transfer of £980,000 from MAFF to IB to cover the cost of administrative work on Pig Welfare Disposal, Modernising Government and the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS).

  The Supplementary Estimate also provides a transfer of £5.691 million Supplementary Credit Approvals capital and £1.35 million programme provision from the MAFF non-voted DEL to voted DEL.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes to the Departmental Expenditure Limits and Running Costs Limits for 2000–01. [151099]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit, which covers Class IV Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) and Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales), will be increased by £66,499,000 from £8,867,256,000 to £8,933,755,000. The Running Costs Limit will be decreased by £6,000 from £2,353,684,000 to £2,353,678,000.

  The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) and £70,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) in respect of contributions for the Integrated Business Information Systems Unit; £130,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2), £29,000 to the National Assembly for Wales (Class XIV Vote 1), £23,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) and £76,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) in connection with Youth Justice Board inspections;
  236W
  £3,000,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) in respect of the reorganisation of responsibility for the Children and Family Court Advisory Services; £23,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1), £7,000 from the Scottish Executive and £3,000 from the Northern Ireland Office (Class XV Vote 1) towards membership costs of the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO); £3,500,000 from the Department of Social Security (Class XII Vote 2) in connection with housing benefit for residents in approved hostels; £32,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £32,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) for criminal justice system interface development; £112,000 to the National Assembly for Wales (Class XIV Vote 1) for the partnership development fund; £150,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) in support of the project "communicating with professional audiences"; £43,000 from the National Assembly for Wales (Class XIV Vote 1) for crime reduction costs: £39,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the funding of the drug service commissioners handbook and the Methadone Alliance and £120,000 in respect of the training of drug workers; £131,000 to the National Assembly for Wales (Class XIV Vote 1) in respect of drug projects to be supported by the Confiscated Assets Fund; £404,000 to the Single Intelligence Vote (Class XVII Vote 2) in respect of drug projects to be supported by the Confiscated Assets Fund; £21,700,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund in respect of the Airwave project; £50,000 to the Department for Education and Employment (Class I Vote 1) for the Connexions Direct project; £99,000 from HM Customs and Excise (Class XVI Vote 4) £99,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class I Vote 1) and £221,000 from the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) towards the costs of drug action teams; £315,000 from the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for the recruitment of drug action teams; £1,130,000 to the Single Intelligence Vote (Class XVII Vote 2) as a contribution towards three overseas drugs prevention projects; £78,000 from the Scottish Executive as a contribution to the animal rights national index; £95,000 from the Electoral Commission (Class XVIIIC Vote 1) in respect of set up costs; £5,100,000 to the Scottish Executive in respect of local authority asylum support costs; £38,000,000 from the Department of Social Security (Class XII Vote 2) in respect of closure of the housing benefit loophole; £1,200,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) and £467,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) in respect of the youth justice pledge; £559,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII Vote 1) to resource the news co-ordination centre; £860,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) following postponement of the transfer of warrant enforcement from the police; £306,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of free travel for Metropolitan police officers; £14,200,000 in respect of expenditure from the Capital Modernisation Fund for an increase in prison capacity; £1,400,000 in respect of expenditure from the Capital Modernisation Fund on the video links project; and £2,000,000 from the Departmental Unallocation Provision to cover additional non-Voted expenditure on the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections.

  The increase in the Department's running costs limit is the net effect of the following transfers: £200,000 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and £70,000 from the

  237W
  Crown Prosecution Service in respect of contributions for the Integrated Business Information Systems Unit; £130,000 to the Department of Health, £29,000 to the National Assembly for Wales, £23,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department and £76,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with Youth Justice Board inspections; £112,000 to the National Assembly for Wales for the partnership development fund; £50,000 to the Department of Health in support of the project "communicating with professional audiences"; £43,000 to the National Assembly for Wales for crime reduction costs; £95,000 from the Electoral Commission in respect of set up costs; £2,263,000 from capital expenditure provision in connection with the costs of the Sirius programme; £1,200,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service and £467,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the youth justice pledge; £465,000 to the Cabinet Office to resource the news co-ordination centre; and £125,000 from the Departmental Unallocated Provision to cover additional non-Voted expenditure on the 1999 European Parliamentary Elections.

  These changes will be offset by transfers or a charge on the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Race Equality
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his proposals for implementation of the duty to promote race equality under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and the second annual report on progress implementing the Stephen Lawrence Action Plan. [151106]

  Mr. Straw
  The second annual report on progress in implementing the Stephen Lawrence Action Plan and the consultation document on implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will be published on Thursday 22 February 2001, to mark the second anniversary of the publication of the Report of the Lawrence Inquiry. Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library and the consultation document will be circulated widely among the public bodies that are likely to be affected and to other interested parties for comments.

  The consultation document will provide information about timing of the implementation of the 2000 Act. It will, in particular, seek views on the introduction of a number of specific duties to help public bodies better fulfil their obligations under the general duty to promote race equality. It will also seek views on extending the list of public bodies that are subject to the general duty to promote race equality.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the second edition of the basket of race equality performance indicators which he has developed. [151107]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the document "Race Equality in Public Services". The document sets out performance data in a number of key areas which are of interest to minority ethnic communities, and provides a quantifiable way of demonstrating the Government's progress in promoting race equality.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the registration fees to be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau. [151198]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Applications to the Criminal Records Bureau for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures need to be counter-signed by a person registered in advance with the Bureau for this purpose. Often this will be the employer or voluntary organisation. We have concluded that the fee for registration should be a one-off payment of £300, with a one-off charge of £5 for each additional counter-signatory nominated by the registered person. These fees reflect the cost to the Bureau of the processes in question. Regulations will be laid accordingly.

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring the Terrorism Act 2000 into force. [151105]

  Mr. Straw
  In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 419W, I indicated that we were working towards an implementation date for the Terrorism Act 2000 of 19 February 2001. I can now confirm that, by virtue of a Commencement Order which I have made under the Act, the date of implementation will be Monday 19 February 2001. On that day, the Terrorism Act 2000 will replace the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. As a consequence of the new judicial extension of detention arrangements which will come into force on 19 February, the United Kingdom will be in a position to lift the derogations entered under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and I can confirm it is our intention to deposit notifications with the Council of Europe and the United Nations to this effect early next week. To take account of any detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 made up to midnight on 18 February, these notifications will lift the derogations as of 26 February 2001.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148074]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: My Department has had contact with Mr. G. P. Hinduja and Mr. S. P. Hinduja in respect of their applications for naturalisation and in respect of immigration matters. Information about contacts concerning their applications for naturalisation will be made available to Sir Anthony Hammond as part of his review of the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. Sir Anthony's report will be published and copies placed in the Vote Office and the Library. It would

  239W
  be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review. Information about contact in respect of immigration matters can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Neither I, nor any of my Ministers, have had any official meetings with either Mr. G. P. Hinduja or Mr. S. P. Hinduja.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) received a letter at his constituency office from Mr. S. P. Hinduja in September 2000 in his capacity as a local MP about parking facilities for people visiting the Swaminarayan Hindu Mandir in his Brent, South constituency. This was dealt with by my right hon. Friend in the usual way and referred to his local authority. Otherwise, neither I, nor my Ministers, recall having been contacted by or having contacted either Mr. G. P. Hinduja or Mr. S. P. Hinduja in the period from 2 May 1997, although we may have been present at functions at the same time as Mr. G. P. and Mr. S. P. Hinduja. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), believes that when he spoke, by invitation, as a Minister at the Sikh Forum Dinner on 18 October 1999, Mr. S. P Hinduja was a guest on the platform table and that at a reception organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) on 3 July, which he attended, Mr. S. P. Hinduja was also present. I understand that Mr. G. P. Hinduja was present at the Asia Light evening held in Brighton last year and that Mr. S. P. Hinduja and Mr. G. P. Hinduja were present at the Labour Party's Annual Gala Dinner on 15 April 1999. I was present at both these events. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and I received invitations to the Hinduja Foundation Diwali Gala evening on 3 November 1999. We did not attend; officials from the Home Office Race Equality Unit attended the event.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the allegations against G. P. Hinduja and S. P. Hinduja respectively of which his Department was aware when the decisions to award citizenship to each of them were made. [150377]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 166W.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policies to tackle domestic violence. [150588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Domestic violence is a serious and abhorrent crime which the Government are determined to tackle effectively. We have emphasised that the domestic context in which it occurs is an aggravating not a mitigating factor and that it is an issue which we expect local crime reduction partnerships to cover in their audits of local problems and strategies for addressing them.
  240W
  Since coming to office, we have undertaken a broad range of measures to reduce the level of domestic violence and strengthen support for victims. That is why we have provided £7 million for a violence against women initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme. That initiative is currently funding for development and evaluation 34 projects that will help us identify what interventions in what circumstances are the most effective and cost-effective.

  Among other significant measures within the last year are: the issue of multi-agency guidance to agencies dealing with domestic violence and of specific guidance to Health Service professionals; the issue of a new Home Office circular to the police; the inclusion of domestic violence within police Best Value performance indicators; the provision of £120 million additional capital funding for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund for specified vulnerable groups, including the survivors of domestic violence; and increased funding for Victim Support.

  Other current initiatives include work with the Association of Chief Police Officers on a circular on effective use of provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the evaluation of probation service domestic violence perpetrator programmes; the development of a domestic violence toolkit on the Home Office's crime reduction website; research on possible future publicity work; and, the inclusion in the British Crime Survey 2001 of a special module on domestic violence.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) funded and (b) actual police officers were in post in the Essex constabulary on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [148699]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The information requested has been provided by the chief constable of the Essex police.

  Essex police

  Year

  Funded officer numbers

  Actual Police number

  31 March 1997

  2,944

  2,952

  7 February 2001

  2,955

  2,907

  Mr.Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilian staff were employed by Essex constabulary(a) on 31 March 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [148701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: On 31 March 1997 the Essex police had 1,199 civilian support staff. This had increased by 273 to 1,472 civilian staff on 30 September 2000. Many of the extra civilian support staff have, I understand, been used to free police officers from paperwork and from jobs that can be as effectively undertaken by civilians.

  Endangered Species
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police units there are in
  241W
  the United Kingdom to enforce international obligations on the protection of endangered species; and what budget has been set aside for this purpose in each of the last five years. [147715]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: There is, in England and Wales, a network of Police Wildlife Liaison Officers, the vast majority of whom carry out this role in addition to their other police duties and responsibilities.

  Six police forces in England and Wales have a full-time Wildlife Liaison Officer. Only a small part of the work of Wildlife Liaison Officers would deal with enforcing international obligations in respect of endangered species.

  There are no figures available in respect of the budgetary provision for this work as that is a matter for individual chief officers.

  Police figures in England and Wales

  Recruitments

  Retirements

  Resignations

  Other1

  Police force

  September 1999

  March 2000

  September 1999

  March 2000

  September 1999

  March 2000

  September 1999

  March 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  60

  44

  43

  61

  13

  8

  4

  17

  Bedfordshire

  37

  0

  19

  20

  6

  5

  6

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  0

  21

  16

  4

  9

  3

  1

  Cheshire

  25

  11

  31

  36

  6

  11

  2

  4

  City of London

  0

  0

  20

  9

  3

  3

  8

  7

  Cleveland

  9

  59

  29

  24

  3

  0

  2

  1

  Cumbria

  15

  8

  28

  22

  4

  5

  3

  4

  Derbyshire

  34

  45

  14

  22

  2

  1

  5

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  42

  32

  56

  56

  5

  12

  4

  1

  Dorset

  15

  72

  22

  27

  9

  7

  5

  5

  Durham

  15

  36

  15

  17

  6

  8

  4

  8

  Dyfed Powys

  38

  16

  17

  14

  2

  6

  0

  0

  Essex

  41

  52

  72

  27

  13

  4

  14

  39

  Gloucestershire

  29

  30

  23

  13

  6

  7

  1

  3

  Greater Manchester

  159

  127

  118

  117

  23

  12

  14

  12

  Gwent

  49

  33

  29

  20

  4

  5

  7

  3

  Hampshire

  61

  91

  71

  58

  17

  15

  23

  6

  Hertfordshire

  88

  79

  33

  34

  17

  13

  0

  18

  Humberside

  37

  54

  38

  38

  4

  9

  6

  0

  Kent

  107

  67

  43

  59

  14

  20

  7

  13

  Lancashire

  51

  48

  44

  34

  9

  22

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  38

  29

  21

  25

  15

  8

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  34

  26

  32

  2

  6

  1

  0

  Merseyside

  39

  2

  71

  45

  10

  7

  4

  8

  Metropolitan police

  566

  428

  409

  406

  182

  184

  124

  172

  Norfolk

  19

  24

  19

  26

  6

  1

  3

  2

  Northamptonshire

  11

  8

  9

  16

  6

  4

  1

  2

  Northumbria

  87

  34

  43

  60

  9

  19

  10

  10

  North Wales

  40

  39

  24

  25

  0

  4

  2

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  9

  25

  26

  5

  6

  3

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  43

  61

  34

  33

  6

  5

  5

  9

  South Wales

  81

  43

  83

  22

  7

  7

  5

  7

  South Yorkshire

  67

  61

  42

  58

  13

  9

  8

  7

  Staffordshire

  21

  1

  23

  28

  10

  13

  6

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  15

  20

  17

  5

  6

  4

  4

  Surrey

  87

  96

  27

  27

  8

  18

  0

  0

  Sussex

  70

  31

  50

  57

  22

  25

  16

  15

  Thames Valley

  88

  102

  57

  52

  29

  25

  4

  22

  Warwickshire

  24

  35

  12

  13

  7

  2

  2

  2

  West Mercia

  13

  2

  45

  34

  10

  10

  2

  1

  West Midlands

  160

  95

  90

  94

  39

  75

  28

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  60

  80

  73

  13

  21

  12

  10

  Wiltshire

  20

  9

  17

  23

  7

  18

  1

  0

  Total all forces

  2,413

  2,122

  2,013

  1,916

  581

  655

  360

  423

  1 "Other" includes death, dismissals and departures for other reasons.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers(a) were recruited to and (b) retired, resignted or were dismissed from each police force and in total between (i) April and September 1999 and (ii) October and March 2000. [148013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The information in the table sets out the number of officers who wen recruited, retired or resigned for the six monthly periods 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2000 and 1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000. The category for "other wastage" includes death, dismissals and departures for other reasons. Because of the way in which the statistics are collected we are unable to provide a breakdown of each of the sub-categories in the "other wastage" column.

  Police Numbers (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means the increase in the number of police officers in North Yorkshire will be funded. [149453]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 174W.

  Arrests
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made on average per police officer for each force area in England in each year since 1990. [150104]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information given in the table is for arrests for notifiable offences and for the year 1999–2000 only. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis.

  Number of arrests for notifiable offences and average arrests per police officer by police force area in England, 1999–2000

  Police force area

  Total arrests

  Total police officers1

  Average arrests

  Avon and Somerset

  21,856

  2,934

  7

  Bedfordshire

  13,011

  1,028

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  12,418

  1,237

  10

  Cheshire

  18,202

  2,011

  9

  Cleveland

  20,521

  1,404

  15

  Cumbria

  15,568

  1,084

  14

  Derbyshire

  18,499

  1,777

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  24,609

  2,841

  9

  Dorset

  12,472

  1,306

  10

  Durham

  2—

  1,558

  2—

  Essex

  24,405

  2,806

  9

  Gloucestershire

  11,352

  1,114

  10

  Greater Manchester

  69,317

  6,795

  10

  Hampshire

  42,598

  3,419

  12

  Hertfordshire

  14,111

  1,767

  8

  Humberside

  2—

  1,932

  2—

  Borough

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  4

  5

  3

  12

  Barnet

  4

  6

  1

  3

  14

  Bexley

  3

  2

  2

  1

  8

  Brent

  8

  3

  4

  1

  16

  Bromley

  2

  1

  3

  4

  10

  Camden

  7

  3

  1

  0

  11

  Croydon

  2

  3

  3

  2

  10

  Ealing

  6

  2

  2

  7

  17

  Enfield

  5

  1

  4

  9

  19

  Greenwich

  2

  1

  1

  2

  6

  Hackney

  5

  2

  5

  3

  15

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  3

  1

  2

  8

  Haringey

  6

  10

  5

  4

  25

  Harrow

  1

  2

  1

  0

  4

  Havering

  1

  2

  4

  2

  9

  Heathrow Airport

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Hillingdon

  2

  6

  6

  1

  15

  Hounslow

  2

  3

  3

  4

  12

  Islington

  4

  7

  0

  1

  12

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  5

  3

  1

  13

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  0

  3

  1

  2

  6

  Lambeth

  2

  3

  2

  3

  10

  Lewisham

  2

  1

  5

  5

  13

  Merton

  1

  2

  1

  0

  4

  Newham

  1

  6

  3

  5

  15

  Redbridge

  6

  4

  4

  6

  20

  244W

  Number of arrests for notifiable offences and average arrests per police officer by police force area in England, 1999–2000

  Police force area

  Total arrests

  Total police officers1

  Average arrests

  Kent

  34,684

  3,204

  11

  Lancashire

  37,535

  3,179

  12

  Leicestershire

  18,000

  1,993

  9

  Lincolnshire

  20,700

  1,115

  19

  London, City of

  4,726

  732

  6

  Merseyside

  44,315

  4,085

  11

  Metropolitan police

  202,218

  25,485

  8

  Norfolk

  16,313

  1,381

  12

  Northamptonshire

  12,730

  1,117

  11

  Northumbria

  47,295

  3,788

  12

  North Yorkshire

  20,353

  1,283

  16

  Nottinghamshire

  33,001

  2,204

  15

  South Yorkshire

  34,727

  3,163

  11

  Staffordshire

  2—

  2,170

  2—

  Suffolk

  10,787

  1,145

  9

  Surrey

  12,993

  1,785

  7

  Sussex

  24,183

  2,822

  9

  Thames Valley

  43,605

  3,740

  12

  Warwickshire

  8,376

  900

  9

  West Mercia

  21,172

  1,887

  11

  West Midlands

  78,592

  7,194

  11

  West Yorkshire

  44,800

  4,822

  9

  Wiltshire

  10,498

  1,118

  9

  1 Police officer strength as at 31 March 2000.

  2 Not available

  Police (Immediate Calls)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police response vehicles have been involved in accidents while attending immediate response calls, broken down by borough, since September 2000. [150285]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the numbers of police response vehicles involved in accidents while attending immediate response calls, broken down by borough, since September 2000 were:
  245W

  Borough

  September

  October

  November

  Total

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  3

  0

  2

  0

  5

  Southwark

  3

  4

  5

  6

  18

  Sutton

  2

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  6

  5

  5

  19

  Waltham Forest

  5

  8

  6

  3

  22

  Wandsworth

  7

  5

  3

  18

  Westminster

  5

  2

  5

  2

  14

  Metropolitan Police Service

  106

  112

  96

  92

  406

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, on a borough-by-borough basis, the percentage of immediate calls which were met within the target time for the Metropolitan police since September 2000. [150284]

  Percentage

  Borough

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Barking and Dagenham

  72.6

  80.1

  78.2

  80.2

  74.3

  Barnet

  74.5

  71.2

  70.3

  72.5

  71.7

  Bexley

  79.9

  79.2

  81.5

  84.8

  83.3

  Brent

  70.1

  69.0

  70.2

  70.9

  70.0

  Bromley

  76.2

  78.0

  77.9

  76.4

  76.2

  Camden

  66.5

  66.7

  69.4

  70.1

  69.9

  Croydon

  73.7

  73.6

  72.8

  73.6

  75.2

  Ealing

  79.1

  75.4

  76.7

  83.0

  79.5

  Enfield

  74.6

  74.5

  69.9

  72.3

  77.1

  Greenwich

  69.0

  72.3

  69.2

  72.4

  75.1

  Hackney

  80.9

  84.5

  88.9

  88.2

  85.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  84.7

  83.8

  87.3

  87.2

  88.9

  Haringey

  74.5

  74.4

  74.8

  76.4

  79.6

  Harrow

  77.7

  78.7

  80.l

  79.8

  77.2

  Havering

  69.4

  71.8

  71.6

  69.7

  70.5

  Heathrow Airport

  92.9

  89.3

  91.1

  89.1

  94.1

  Hillingdon

  72.4

  70.8

  70.4

  75.2

  77.2

  Hounslow

  74.0

  76.3

  73.9

  76.0

  76.5

  Islington

  70.2

  70.1

  70.9

  72.5

  74.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  81.8

  82.7

  84.1

  84.0

  83.2

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  83.7

  83.3

  83.2

  80.5

  85.6

  Lambeth

  74.5

  75.1

  72.6

  76.2

  76.1

  Lewisham

  75.9

  78.5

  77.3

  76.5

  80.1

  Merton

  80.0

  77.7

  77.0

  77.8

  73.6

  Newham

  68.8

  71.3

  70.5

  68.3

  76.3

  Redbridge

  73.4

  70.5

  68.6

  69.6

  73.9

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  79.6

  79.2

  76.1

  81.1

  81.6

  Southwark

  79.0

  76.7

  78.1

  79.4

  80.9

  Sutton

  84.7

  87.0

  86.4

  86.3

  82.4

  Tower Hamlets

  69.1

  68.9

  68.5

  70.0

  73.0

  Waltham Forest

  73.7

  81.1

  12.2

  80.7

  82.7

  Wandsworth

  81.4

  81.1

  78.4

  82.4

  79.5

  Westminster

  82.6

  84.2

  83.9

  83.6

  85.3

  Violent Offences (Waverley)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reported offences involving violence there were in Waverley in the past three years; and how many of those involved(a) village shops and (b) post offices. [150309]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Totals of violent crimes in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas were not collected centrally prior to September 1999, and are not collected by location of offence. The table gives the number of violent offences recorded in Waverley in the year to September 2000 in the three categories of violent crime. There are no previous comparable year data held
  246W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the Metropolitan Police Service's charter standard is to attend 80 per cent. of immediate calls within 12 minutes. The percentage of immediate calls which were met within the target time for the Metropolitan police since September 2000 were:

  centrally. This information, with that on all other Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, was published in table 5 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/01, "Recorded Crime England and Wales October 1999 to September 2000", which is available in the Library.

  Waverley crime and disorder reduction partnership

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  Number

  October 1999 to September 2000

  Violence against the person

  665

  Sexual offences

  65

  Robbery

  23

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department since the introduction of the new allowances for housing for police officers in London,(a) how many officers joined the Metropolitan police from other police forces and (b) how many left the Metropolitan police to join other police forces; and if he will make a statement. [148650]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No new allowances for housing have been introduced for police officers in London. The London Allowance paid to those police officers recruited into the Metropolitan police since 1 September 1994 who are not in receipt of housing allowance was increased with effect from I July 2000.

  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that between 1 July 2000 and 31 January 2001, 68 police officers joined the Metropolitan police from other forces and 245 left the Metropolitan police for other forces.

  Departmental Policies (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tooting parliamentary constituency the effect of his Department's policies and actions since 1 May 1997. [149862]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although following are examples relating to the Tooting constituency or the immediate locality:

  Crime Reduction Programme (CRP):

  Targeted Policing Initiative:
  Round 2: Understanding and Responding to Hate Crime—A Metropolitan Police Project seeking to tackle domestic violence and racially motivated crime in all London boroughs within their policing area. Scheme seeks to develop a data system that will inform the investigation of hate crime; create a system for training and support for those dealing with hate crime' and improve the understanding of different forms of hate crime and how to respond to it. Also aims to find more effective ways of identifying both new and repeat victims. Allocated funding of £287,000 for a 22 month project.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV):

  Three schemes approved under the CCTV initiative 1999–total £327,500
  Lennox Estate—15 CCTV cameras and related equipment which will provide coverage around the Lennox Housing Estate with the aim of targeting criminal damage, vandalism, anti-social behaviour and attempted burglaries.
  St. George's Hospital—providing 11 cameras and associated equipment the scheme seeks to facilitate coverage around St George's Hospital, focusing primarily on the car park area,
  248W
  which has experienced relatively high levels of vehicle crime. The scheme will also target burglary, bicycle theft and anti-social behaviour.
  Battersea Park Extension—four CCTV cameras and associated equipment have been funded to provide further coverage of the Battersea Park area and the vicinity of Prince of Wales Drive. This will enable the Metropolitan police and the Wandsworth Parks Constabulary to respond to incidents quickly and control public events more effectively. The scheme also seeks to reduce motor vehicle crime, which has been a problem affecting off-street parking around Prince of Wales Drive.

  Wandsworth has recently submitted six bids under round two of the CCTV Initiative. The funding requested from the CRP is £530,299. These bids have been submitted to the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme Unit (CRPU) and a decision is awaited.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative:

  There are three initiatives at present within the borough:
  Round 2: Over 60's—The Metropolitan police in partnership with Wandsworth Borough Council have been allocated funding for a project covering the over 60's. The main interventions proposed are target hardening for repeat victims, particularly among elderly households. Allocated Crime Reduction Programme funding of £7,100.
  Round 2: Balham Ward—The project encompasses the Balham area. Main interventions proposed are raising awareness, roadshow and watch link, target hardening and a property accreditation scheme for an area with large numbers of flats and houses in multiple occupation. Allocated Crime Reduction Programme funding of £19,400.
  Round 2: West Putney Ward—Main interventions proposed are target hardening, awareness raising and direct offender targeting in areas with large detached properties and council estates. Allocated Crime Reduction Programme funding of £25,100.

  Wandsworth has submitted a bid under round 3 of the Reducing Burglary Initiative. The bid covers a significant proportion of the borough and asks for funding of £526,100. The bid has been submitted to the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme Unit (CRPU) and a decision is awaited.

  Drug Arrest Referral Initiative:

  A drug arrest referral scheme has been established in Wandsworth. The scheme aims to reduce drugs misuse and drug related crime by providing treatment options for problem drug users, who are arrested. A specialist drugs worker is employed to identify, assess and refer people to treatment who have been arrested and want help in relation to problem drug use. The cost of employing Arrest Referral Workers is being matched jointly by the Metropolitan Police until April 2002. Under the Crime Reduction Programme, the Joint Finance Initiative additionally provides a contribution towards local treatment of problem drug-users. The CRP allocation of funding for arrest referral is £25,974 and for treatment is £21,468.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Tooting to a greater or lesser extent. For example:

  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;

  Racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  249W
  The asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and

  Good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum claims have been refused because the applicants did not submit their SEF within the two-week deadline. [150098]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information relating to asylum applicants who did not submit their Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) within the 10 working day deadline is not currently routinely collected so could only be obtained through examination of individual case records and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information relates to total refusals of asylum on non-compliance grounds; comprising failure to provide further evidence as required and failure to respond to invitations for interview to establish identity as well as failure to complete a SEF correctly and within the time allowed.

  The information that is available is given in the table.

  Refusals of asylum on non-compliance grounds in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, April—December 20001,2

  Of which on no compliance grounds:

  Month

  Total refused

  Cases under normal procedures

  Cases under backlog criteria3

  April

  4,205

  1,165

  —

  May

  5,780

  1,655

  255

  June

  6,740

  2,135

  380

  July

  6,575

  2,015

  230

  August

  7,680

  3,125

  170

  September

  6,785

  2,885

  75

  October4

  7,250

  3,110

  5—

  November

  10,105

  4,425

  5—

  December

  7,850

  2,840

  5—

  1 Provisional figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5

  2Information is for initial decision, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3Includes cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog

  4 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria

  5 Nil

  Note:

  Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds

  Information on the number of refusals, and the number of refusals on non-compliance grounds is published regularly on the Department's website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases have been dispersed under the terms of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; how many of these were(a) single adults and (b) couples without children; and if he will make a statement. [150039]
  250W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: As at the end of December 2000, 16,5901 bedspaces in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation were allocated to asylum seekers and their dependants. The number of bedspaces allocated to single adults and to couples without children is not available.
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest ten.
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the past three years(a) how many failed asylum seekers were removed from the United Kingdom and (b) how many asylum applications were refused; and if he will make a statement. [150076]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]The information is given in the table.

  Year

  Total refusals 1,2

  Asylum seekers removed3

  1998

  22,315

  6,990

  19991

  12,300

  7,660

  2000 4

  78,180

  8,970

  1 Initial decision outcome

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  3 Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  4 Provisional figures

  The Government are determined to increase substantially the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed.

  We are taking additional measures, including expanding the number of detention places, to increase and speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers. The programme of works to deliver around 2,000 new detention places by the end of 2001 is well on track. In addition to the current facilities at Tinsley House, Gatwick, Campsfield House, Oxford and Harmondsworth, near Heathrow, we have successfully let contracts to deliver 900 places at Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire by May 2001 and 550 places at Harmondsworth, to replace the current facility by the end of June 2001. We are also tendering a contract to deliver up to 150 places on the old Dungavel House prison site in Lanarkshire, Scotland by the autumn of 2001 and progressing plans to deliver 300 places at Aldington in Kent. An agreement is also in place with the Prison Service to allow us to use 112 places at Her Majesty's Prison Lindholme and up to a further 500 prison places throughout England for Immigration Act detainees, while the new facilities are under construction.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average payments were made to each London borough per asylum seeker for housing allowance for the latest year for which information is available. [150547]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not possible to give separate figures for housing allowance. The table gives the information that is available and shows the actual average amounts paid by the Home Office to each London borough for families and single adults for the year 1999–2000. The amount covers accommodation, support and administration costs.
  251W

  Average unit costs for 1999–2000

  Adults

  Families

  Barnet

  134.5

  243.5

  Barking and Dagenham

  134.5

  245.2

  Bexley

  141.2

  231.1

  Brent

  119.2

  240.1

  Bromley

  140.0

  240.0

  Camden

  140.0

  240.0

  Corporation of London

  140.0

  240.0

  Croydon

  110.6

  194.5

  Ealing

  136.2

  242.4

  Enfield

  142.1

  226.5

  Greenwich

  83.3

  221.0

  Hackney

  137.2

  158.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  140.0

  240.0

  Haringey

  155.7

  197.5

  Harrow

  140.0

  240.0

  Havering

  140.0

  240.0

  Hillingdon

  124.9

  240.0

  Hounslow

  130.4

  247.9

  Islington

  140.0

  240.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  140.0

  240.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  141.2

  222.5

  Lambeth

  137,6

  215.4

  Lewisham

  91.1

  180.3

  Merton

  142.8

  230.7

  Newham

  127.1

  191.4

  Redbridge

  110.3

  224.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  78.4

  243.6

  Southwark

  140.0

  240.0

  Sutton

  140.0

  240.0

  Tower Hamlets

  140.0

  240.0

  Waltham Forest

  75.5

  233.2

  Wandsworth

  132.7

  241.8

  Westminster

  140.0

  240.0

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation(a) he has determined personally and (b) have been determined personally by other Ministers in his Department (i) in total since 2 May 1997 and (ii) in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000. [149572]

  Mrs. Roche
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The overwhelming majority of decisions are taken by officials.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which hon. Members made representations to his Department between 2 May 1997 and 28 July 1998 in support of relaxing the residence requirement for applicants for naturalisation. [150040]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: None so far as we can determine. It would entail disproportionate cost for us to check for any representations made in the context of individual cases.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the residence requirements are with which an applicant for naturalisation is expected to comply; what is the legal basis for these requirements; and if he will make a statement. [149575]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 where the residency requirements are set out. Schedule l is the legal basis for the requirements.

  Prison Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) were in category B prisons, (b) escaped from category B prisons and (c) absconded from category B prisons in each year between 1990 and 2000. [149916]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available statistics show the category B prison population at the end of June for each year was:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  5,274

  1996

  8,162

  1997

  9,016

  1998

  7,181

  1999

  7,396

  2000

  7,763

  I am unable to provide figures for 1990–1994 in the time available.

  Determining the number of prisoners who have either escaped or absconded from category B prisons over the 10 year period can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. However, I can advise the House that there has not been an escape from a category B establishment since September 1999.

  Police (Avon and Somerset)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate(a) the total number of police officers and (b) the number of frontline officers in the Avon and Somerset area in each year since 1978–79. [148739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers in Avon and Somerset constabulary from December 1978 is provided in the table. However, it is only possible to provide information from December 1990 on the number of operational (frontline) officers. The information on operational officers has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Data on operational numbers were collected on a calendar year basis between 1990 and 1993. Police numbers prior to 1994–95 have therefore been provided on the same basis so that the data are comparable. From 1994–95 all data are on a financial year basis (ie as at 31 March of each year).

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary police numbers since 1978 and operational numbers since 1990

  Year

  Total number of police officers

  Number of operational police officers

  19781

  2,775

  n/a

  1979

  2,861

  n/a

  1980

  2,962

  n/a

  1981

  3,014

  n/a

  1982

  2,996

  n/a

  1983

  2,985

  n/a

  1984

  2,979

  n/a

  1985

  2,965

  n/a

  1986

  2,982

  n/a

  1987

  3,021

  n/a

  1988

  2,975

  n/a

  1989

  3,055

  n/a

  1990

  3,059

  2,599

  253W

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary police numbers since 1978 and operational numbers since 1990

  Year

  Total number of police officers

  Number of operational police officers

  1991

  3,072

  2,640

  1992

  3,065

  2,379

  1993

  3,034

  2,286

  1994–952

  3,000

  2,262

  1995–96

  2,981

  2,277

  1996–97

  2,989

  2,378

  1997–98

  2,976

  2,417

  1998–99

  2,999

  2,394

  1999–2000

  2,934

  2,777

  2000–013

  2,941

  3n/a

  1 Figures between 1978 and 1993 are on a calendar year basis.

  2 Figures from 1994–95 are on a financial year basis.

  3 Total police numbers for 2000–01 are those for 30 September 2000. Information on the force's operational numbers for 31 March 2001 will not be available until the middle of the year.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums of money his Department will in future make available each year for independent charities providing support for victims by victims; and what procedures there will be for applying for such funding. [150457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are considering the allocation of grant to victims programmes and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums of money his Department has given each year, from 1995 to date to(a) Victim Support, (b) other independent victim charities, and the amounts per charity, and (c) other victim support organisations with non-charitable status, and the amounts per organisation; and what proportion of the above amounts had gone to provide support for bereaved and injured road traffic victims (i) via Victim Support, (ii) via the independent victim charities and (iii) via the other victim support organisations with non-charitable status. [150458]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information about Home Office grant given to victim support organisations since 1995 is summarised in the table.

  Victim Support (£ million)

  Support after murder and manslaughter (£)

  Other victim support organizations (£)

  1995–96

  10.817

  0

  0

  1996–97

  11.682

  0

  0

  1997–98

  12.682

  0

  0

  1998–99

  12.682

  43,000

  0

  1999–2000

  17.500

  100,000

  0

  2000–01

  18.600

  100,000

  0

  Information about the proportion of such grant which might have gone to provide support for victims of road traffic incidents is not available.

  Since 1999 the Home Office has also provided £23,000 a year to the road safety organisation, BRAKE, for the supply of the booklets 'Coping with grief' and
  254W
  'Procedures following a death on the road in England and Wales'. The booklets are distributed free of charge by the police to the families of those killed in road crashes.

  New Prison, Peterborough
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects work to start on demolishing existing buildings to make way for the new prison in Peterborough; [150536]

  (2) for what reason the demolition of existing buildings prior to the building of the new prison in Peterborough has been delayed. [150538]

  Mr. Boateng
  There has been no delay. The Prison Service carried out its own investment appraisal as to whether to demolish the existing buildings before appointing a preferred supplier to construct and operate the new prison at Peterborough. Discussions took place with the city council, demolition contractors and the consortiums bidding for the new prison. At the conclusion of these discussions it was decided that the best option was to incorporate the demolition work into the PFI construction contract.

  Work on demolishing the existing buildings on the site of the new prison to be built at Peterborough is expected to commence in late 2001.

  Work on demolishing the existing building on the site of the new prison to be built at Peterborough is expected to commence in late 2001.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects the new prison to be operational in Peterborough; [150535]

  (2) when he will announce funding details for the new prison in Peterborough. [150537]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of contract costs and funding will be announced to coincide with contract signature which is expected in late 2001. The new prison at Peterborough is expected to take its first prisoners in early 2004.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on behalf of her constituents(a) for and (b) against the new prison in Peterborough. [150546]

  Mr. Boateng
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) has made representations on behalf of three constituents, one of whom was against the prison proposal with the other two being respectively against the proposed location within Peterborough and the access route into the prison.

  Offences against Children
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on offenders who commit offences against children. [150569]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government believe those who offend against children should be dealt with severely by the courts and appropriate action taken to prevent their re-offending. Recent measures include the provisions in Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to prevent people who commit serious offences
  255W
  against children from subsequently working with them; to raise the penalties for the offence of possession of child pornography to five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both, and for the making and distributing of child pornography to 10 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both; and to raise the age limit for the offence of indecent conduct towards a child to protect children up to 16. All these measures came into force on 11 January 2001. They form part of a programme of work we have undertaken to increase protection for children from those who may harm them.

  Assaults on Police Officers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on assaults on police officers. [150570]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Assault is a serious offence and assaults on the police are deplorable. The Government are committed to reducing the number of assaults on police officers as part of their overall strategy to reduce violent crime, as set out in "fighting violent crime together: an action plan" published in January. We are determined to support the right of every law-abiding individual to go about his or her daily life without the fear of falling victim to crime. We recognise our responsibility in supporting the police to protect the community. That is why we are increasing police funding significantly and in real terms.

  The Government are determined to ensure that all police officers are protected in carrying out their duties. We support the use of the best available means to protect our police officers. In addition to the development of protective clothing to guard against knife or gun attack, police now have access to the up-to-date extendable side handled batons and the CS incapacitant spray, which help to protect them from assault. The Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch continues to monitor developments in this area, in order to provide the police service with advice on the most effective equipment available.

  We recognise the importance of high quality training in protecting police officers in carrying out their duties. In May 2000 the Government published "Police Training:

  Number of parenting, child safety and sex offender orders (as introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) made, discharged or breached within pilot areas and nationally up to 30 September 20001

  Made

  Type of order and police force area

  Number up to 31 May 2000

  Nationally from 1 June to 30 September 20001

  Discharged

  Breached (up to June 2000)1

  Sex Offender Order2

  332

  11

  4n/a

  n/a

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Parenting Order5

  6284

  740

  n/a

  81

  of which given at:

  Civil and family proceedings courts

  —

  18

  n/a

  —

  Cleveland

  10—

  1

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  10—

  6

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  5

  —

  —

  256W
  The Way Forward" which set out a range of proposals to ensure common national standards in police training and life-long learning for staff.

  In order to allow the identification of the level of recorded assaults on the police, in 1998 we introduced assault on a constable as one of the new elements in the recording of crime figures. Assault carries a range of sentences depending on the seriousness of the incident. We expect the courts to use their full powers when considering sentences in cases where the police are assaulted.

  Departmental Business (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits abroad have been made by Home Office officials on departmental business(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [149042]

  Mr. Straw
  The information which has been requested is not held centrally and would incur disproportionate cost to obtain.

  Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many sex offender orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been(a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement; [149162]

  (2) how many child safety orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement; [149164]

  (3) how many parenting orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement. [149163]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his replies, 8 February 2001, c. 674W]: The information given in the table covering the number of Parenting Orders and Child Safety Orders made up to 31 May 2000 was incorrect. An updated table with amendments is given.
  257W

  Number of parenting, child safety and sex offender orders (as introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) made, discharged or breached within pilot areas and nationally up to 30 September 20001

  Made

  Type of order and police force area

  Number up to 31 May 2000

  Nationally from 1 June to 30 September 20001

  Discharged

  Breached (up to June 2000)1

  Northumbria

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  10—

  1

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  10—

  1

  —

  —

  Criminal courts

  6284

  227

  n/a

  —

  Bedfordshire

  48

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  10—

  2

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  10—

  4

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  44

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  10—

  6

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  10—

  1

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  27

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  24

  1

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  10—

  2

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  12

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  10—

  2

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  21

  3

  —

  —

  Child Safety Order5

  2

  —

  9n/a

  10—

  Northumbria

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Care Order for Non-Compliance with Child Safety Orders

  —

  —

  n/a

  10—

  1 Provisional.

  2 Implemented on 1 December 1998.

  3 Data by area for Sex Offender Orders only available from 1 June 2000.

  4 Subsection 2(7) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that "except with the consent of both parties, no sex offender order shall be discharged before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of service of the order".

  5 Piloted from 30 September 1998 and implemented nationally from 1 June 2000.

  6 An actual breakdown by type of court is not readily available for parenting orders made within the piloting period. Information suggests that 62 per cent. were made by criminal courts, 37 per cent. by civil courts and 1 per cent. at family proceedings courts.

  7 Data for parenting orders given at criminal courts up to 30 June 2000 only.

  8 Breach recorded in Dyfed-Powys police force area in 1999.

  9 If the child fails to comply with any requirement, the court may, on application of the responsible officer, discharge the order and make in respect of him a care order under s31(10(a)) of the Children Act 1989.

  10 Not applicable.

  n/a = not available

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [149910]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under round one of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, £201,000 was awarded to the Pendle Community Safety partnership in January 2000, for a CCTV scheme in Nelson town centre. The scheme proposes to reduce violent crime, vehicle crime, burglary and fear of crime.

  The Youth Justice Board has also invested £228,018 on two development projects in Lancashire, including Pendle. The projects cover a victim/offender mediation service and a community bail support scheme.

  £14,000 has also been invested in Pendle under the Youth Inclusion "Summer Splash" Scheme, aimed at 13 to 17-year-olds at risk of offending during the Easter and Summer school holidays.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his response to the consultation exercise on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. [151098]

  Mr. Straw
  I will shortly be announcing details of a wide-ranging package of improvements to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, based on the outcome of the public consultation exercise that we launched in 1999. This package has been drawn up in the light of careful analysis of all the responses to the exercise, and in consultation with Scottish Ministers. Details will be placed in the Library.

  Airwave Radio System
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what concerns were raised by Lancashire constabulary regarding health and safety matters in relation to its pilot of the Airwave radio system; and if he will make a statement; [150571]

  (2) if he will make a statement on interference caused by the Airwave radio system with other electronic equipment, with particular reference to equipment at

  259W
  (a) hospitals and (b) airports; and what guidance has been issued to officers regarding the use of Airwave equipment where it might cause such interference; [150568]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the health and safety risks associated with the Airwave radio system and TETRA radio signals. [150567]

  Mr. Straw
  Health and safety considerations have been of paramount importance in the development of Airwave, a system which should in itself contribute to a safe and effective working environment for the police. The system has been designed to enable the use of terminals which comply with guidelines issued by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) on exposure to electro-magnetic fields.

  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, which reported in May 2000, included in its report reference to the possible effects of radio frequency emissions at or near a modulation of 16Hz on the release of calcium from brain tissue. This may be of significance in relation to Airwave given that it uses the Terrestrial Trunk Radio System (TETRA) which modulates at 17.6Hz. No obvious health risks were suggested although the report concluded that as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments in signal coding. The first, core parts of the TETRA standard were adopted as European Telecommunications Standards on 12 January 1996.

  The best advice I have received is that no obvious health risks have been identified; in these circumstances and in the light of the benefits that Airwave will bring to the police service, I have concluded that its roll-out should continue according to the planned timetable. However, I have also agreed that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the NRPB should conduct a review of the relevant science.

  In addition I understand that the Lancashire Police Federation has raised with senior officials in Lancashire concerns about the possible harmful effects of pulsed radio waves at 17.6Hz. These concerns arose following media reports. I have also received a letter from the Police Federation at the national level about the safety implications if Airwave radios are required to be switched off in circumstances where interference might be at issue.

  Police radio terminals (hand-held radios and radios installed in vehicles), when transmitting, are capable of interfering with sensitive equipment in hospitals. This is not a new problem and is not an issue confined to police radios. Guidance was issued in 1997 restricting the use of public radios in hospitals (Home Office Communications Advisory Panel Guidance Note HGN(P)33).

  Police radio terminals are used at airports with the normal operational precautions. This means that, when close to any sensitive equipment (eg the Instrument Landing System at the end of a runway) or near hazardous areas (eg for re-fuelling), police officers currently refrain from making calls. When using Airwave (TETRA) radios, which can transmit autonomously to keep in contact with the network, officers would have to switch them off in such circumstances. Guidance is being prepared in Lancashire on the use of TETRA radio terminals in airports. Work is also being carried out to develop a
  260W
  transmit-inhibit mode of operation for TETRA terminals so that they will transmit only when calls are being made, as is the case with current police radios.

  Police radio terminals can also interfere with traffic law enforcement devices (TLEDs). Guidance was issued in 1989 (Home Office circular 39/1989) advising that radios should not be used close to breath testing equipment. Further operational guidance will be prepared in the light of research currently being carried out into the susceptibility of TLEDs to frequency interference from a TETRA or GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) terminal.

  The Home Office is writing to Chief Constables (copied to the Police Federation) advising them of the action being taken in relation to interference and health issues. Copies of that letter will be placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hon. Member for Leicester, East
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions upon which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), met in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office individuals and organisations over issues not related to his ministerial duties, and the names of those persons and bodies and the purposes for which the meetings were held. [149803]

  Mr. Vaz
  Very occasionally, and because of parliamentary or ministerial commitments, meetings scheduled to be held outside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have had to be transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at short notice. No other official resources are involved, nor are central records kept of such meetings.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make representations to the UN Sanctions Committee for the early release of(a) food-testing equipment and (b) equipment to combat cancer, which is being held from entry into Iraq. [147375]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK works consistently in the UN Sanctions Committee to facilitate the export to Iraq of humanitarian goods such as those described by the hon. Member. We will continue to do so.

  If the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, is aware of any specific examples of such goods on hold by any member of the Sanctions Committee, we are prepared to look into the matter and, where appropriate, make representations bilaterally and in the Sanctions Committee.

  The UK only places holds on goods where there is insufficient information about the goods or their intended end-use or because the goods have military as well as civilian applications. The hold is lifted as soon as we receive the information required to reassure us that the goods will not be used for purposes prohibited by Security Council resolutions.
  261W
  I am anxious further to refine this process in any way which is consistent with UN Security Council resolutions and also the humanitarian interests of the Iraqi people.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the current contracts on hold in respect of permitted supplies to Iraq; and for what reason 26 per cent. of goods under agreed oil spares contracts to Iraq have so far been received. [150195]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UN Sanctions Committee has approved 82 per cent. of the contracts submitted for the export of goods to Iraq under the UN oil for food programme. The UK puts on hold only about 2 per cent. of all contracts submitted to it for approval and then usually only on a temporary basis until concerns about the nature or end-use of the goods have been met. Details of all oil for food contracts are available on the UN website at www.un.org/Depts/oip.

  The UN continues to streamline its procedures to accelerate the export of goods to Iraq. The Sanctions Committee has therefore agreed lists of items, including oil spare parts, which no longer need to be referred to the UN for approval. At the same time Iraq continues to hamper the UN's efforts. Delays in the issue of letters of credit by the Central Bank of Iraq, for example, have prevented the delivery at one time of up to $1.1 billion worth of goods already approved by the UN.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been received from the United States nuclear authorities in respect of the construction of lead test assemblies of mixed oxide nuclear fuel in British fabrication plants. [149761]

  Mr. Wilson
  As part of its agreement with Russia to dispose of TN 34 of plutonium declared surplus to its military requirements, the US has undertaken to immobilise TN 25.5 through irradiation in a reactor.

  We have not received any request from the US to construct "lead test assemblies" for this programme in UK fabrication plants.

  Korea
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the prospects for the reunification of Korea; [149906]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Joint Declaration between North and South Korea. [149907]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK welcomed the signing by President Kim Dae-Jung and Chairman Kim Jong Il of a joint declaration on reunification, family reunions, economic co-operation and future dialogue when they met in Pyongyang in June last year.

  North-south dialogue on implementing the joint declaration has continued to develop since the summit. So far there have been four rounds of ministerial level talks and five rounds of military contacts. Land mine clearance operations are under way and a road and rail link across the demilitarised zone is being rebuilt. Three rounds of
  262W
  talks between the Red Cross societies on both sides have resulted in two rounds of separated family visits with a further round scheduled for the end of February. Commercial links have continued to develop in a number of sectors, including the signature of investment protection and double taxation agreements. Both the ROK and DPRK have continued to express their commitment to further reconciliation and to eventual reunification.

  It was in support of these positive developments that the UK established diplomatic relations with the DPRK in December. However, long-term improvement of north-south relations also depends on the eventual resolution of issues such as human rights, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation, and the development and exports of missiles. Establishing diplomatic relations with the DPRK should provide a more effective channel for pressing UK concerns on these issues.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for a reduction of North Korean exports of arms. [150282]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are concerned by North Korea's past record of exporting arms, especially ballistic missile systems and their related technology. We were encouraged by talks held last year between the DPRK and the US. In the context of those talks, the DPRK said they would be willing to stop exporting missiles if they could be compensated for the loss of foreign earnings.

  We have raised our concerns on this issue during our discussions on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the UK and the DPRK. We will continue to use our diplomatic relations with the DPRK to reinforce the need for them to stop destabilising arms exports. We have also drawn the DPRK's attention to the draft international code of conduct against ballistic missile proliferation.

  Indonesia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government concerning the continuing forced conversion of Christians to Islam in the Moluccas. [150203]

  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply concerned by recent reports of attempts to force Christians to convert to Islam in Maluku and our ambassador has raised this with senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta.

  Both the Secretary of State for International Development and I visited Indonesia in October 2000 and discussed the situation in Maluku with President Wahid and senior Ministers. We urged tolerance and restraint and made clear to them the Indonesian Government's responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I also discussed events with Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in the margins of the EU-ASEAN meeting in Vientiane on 12 December.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indonesian Government about attacks on Christians. [150103]
  263W
  Mr. Battle
  We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to exercise tolerance and restraint and remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and to take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice.

  Both the Secretary of State for International Development and I visited Indonesia in October 2000 and discussed the situation in Maluku with President Wahid and senior Ministers. We urged tolerance and restraint and made clear to them the Indonesian Government's responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I also discussed events with Alwi Shihab, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in the margins of the EU-ASEAN meeting in Vientiane on 12 December.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Government supported the provisions in the treaty of Nice relating to the extension of qualified majority voting. [150194]

  Mr. Vaz
  The decision to agree to qualified majority voting was made on a case-by-case basis. The Government agreed to majority voting where this will be of benefit to Britain and where it promotes efficient decision making in the institutions of the EU. But the Government made it clear before the Nice European Council that they would insist on unanimity in areas of overriding national interest, such as taxation, social security, defence, treaty change and own resources.

  Embassies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits of sharing premises used as embassies with other EU member states. [150196]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1992, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has actively pursued opportunities to share embassy premises with out EU partners. We are already co-located with EU partners in Almaty, Lima, Minsk, Quito and Reykjavik and are in the construction phase of a major co-location project in Dar es Salaam. A further four possible sites for co-location are also currently under consideration.

  Panikos Tsiakourmas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on the case of Mr. Panikos Tsiakourmas, a Greek Cypriot; and if he will make a statement. [150394]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has sent messages to both Mr. Denktash and Turkish Foreign Minister Cem about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest, emphasising the importance we attach to a resolution of this very serious matter. Our high commissioner in Nicosia also continues to make strong and regular representations to Mr. Denktash. We will continue to pursue this matter until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers under the treaty of Nice exist to enable a member state of the European Union to have its voting rights forfeited. [150116]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: There are no new powers in the treaty of Nice that provide for the suspension of voting rights.

  Article 7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, amending the treaty on European Union, introduced the possibility for the Council to suspend certain rights under that treaty, including voting rights, where a member state is found to have seriously and persistently breached the founding principles of the Union set out in article 6 (1). The treaty of Nice amends article 7 TEU to introduce an early warning mechanism where there is a clear risk of those principles being breached. This mechanism allows for the Council to make recommendations to be made to the member state concerned, having listened to its views.

  UN Education Rapporteur
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 357W. on the UN special rapporteur on right to education, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 7 February. [150384]

  Mr. Battle
  The UN special rapporteur on the right to education was due to meet with my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and the Minister of State, Home Office on 7 February to discuss the report of her previous visit in 1999.

  Unfortunately, the special rapporteur was unable to travel from Sweden to the UK due to adverse weather conditions. We are in contact with her office with a view to her visiting the UK at a later date.

  Congo
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the nature and extent of the continuing violence in the region of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and what representations he has made to the Government of Uganda about its responsibility for restoring peace to that region. [150471]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have received distressing reports about continuing inter-ethnic violence in and around Bunia. The conflict is complex, but seen by many as a violent extension of the local administration's inability to manage long-standing tensions between communities in the province. There are also accusations that the Ugandan forces, who effectively control eastern DRC, have been guilty of failing to prevent the violence. In some cases, Ugandan officers have been accused of participating in the killings.

  Tension remains high, and humanitarian agencies have moved their staff to Bunia town for safety. Humanitarian access in the rest of the region is extremely difficult.

  From the first reports of killings last year, our high commissioner in Kampala maintained a close dialogue with the Ugandan Government and army command. He

  265W
  urged them to restore calm in the region and to defuse the situation, ensure humanitarian access, and check any action by the Ugandan army that may be contributing to the conflict. We continue to monitor the situation closely and remain in close contact with humanitarian NGOs working in the region. In addition to bilateral contacts, we maintain close contact with the UN on these issues.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Rwandan Government about the involvement of their armed forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [150469]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met President Kagame on 28 January. She encouraged him to seize the opportunity to move the Lusaka peace process forward. The UK permanent representative to the United Nations in New York also encouraged President Kagame to ensure Rwandan participation in the forthcoming meetings of signatories to the Lusaka agreement (12 and 15 March) during bilateral discussions in New York on 7 February, and urged him to engage in further dialogue with the other parties.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 557W, and his answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) of 24 January 2001, Official Report, column 593W, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage dialogue between the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [150467]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Secretary of State's special representative for the Great Lakes and the UK permanent representative to the United Nations met President Kabila in New York on 2 February. They assured him of Britain's readiness to help, including through contacts with other parties to the conflict, and urged him to show the political will to make real progress on implementing the Lusaka agreement. Our ambassador in Kinshasa has spoken similarly to the Congolese Foreign Minister. We have taken similar action with all the other parties to the conflict in recent weeks. We have also been working with our UN, EU and African partners on moving the peace process forward.

  Burma
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese regime concerning the treatment of the Chin, Kachin and Naga ethnic minority groups in Burma. [150585]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) today,Official Report, column 266W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place about atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people during the recent European Union fact-finding mission to Burma; and if this mission visited Karen, Karenni and Shan states. [150573]
  266W
  Mr. Battle
  EU Troika representative visited Rangoon on 29–31 January and had meetings with the regime, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and ethnic minority representatives. They discussed a wide range of issues, including human rights.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the last 12 months to the Government of Burma regarding atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. [150575]

  Mr. Battle
  We remain deeply concerned about human rights violations of all Burma's peoples, including ethnic minorities, and take every opportunity to highlight our concern. I raised our concerns at the EU-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Vientiane, Laos, in December 2000. The Burmese Foreign Minister was present. I have also raised them with the Burmese ambassador in London. We also raise our concerns through our embassy in Rangoon and visiting officials from London, most recently with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 19 January 2001; with EU partners through the recent EU Troika mission and the EU Common Position on Burma, which was strengthened in April 2000 and subsequently renewed in October; and with co-sponsorship of UN resolutions condemning the abuses at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2000, and most recently at the UN General Assembly in November 2000.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to build a consensus at the United Nations Security Council in support of the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal on Burma; and if he will make a statement. [150574]

  Mr. Battle
  We have raised our concerns over Burma with our Security Council partners, but there is no consensus at the moment for Security Council engagement on Burma issues, including that of establishing an international criminal tribunal.

  Ministerial/EU Commission Meetings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many working meetings have been held between Ministers and members of the European Commission since 1 July 1999; and if he will list the(a) dates of, (b) subjects discussed and (c) Ministers and Commissioners involved in these meetings. [150265]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: UK Ministers routinely meet members of the Commission at all meetings of the Council of Ministers and other occasions and discuss a wide range of issues.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans(a) he and (b) his NATO counterparts have to propose amendments to the outer space treaty to take account of national missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [150803]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have no plans to propose amendments to the outer space treaty, nor are we aware of any such plans by NATO counterparts.

  US-UK Relations
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the US-UK relations following the decision to sell RR Spey turbofan engines to China; and if he will make a statement. [150572]

  Mr. Battle
  The matter has not been raised by the US Administration. US-UK relations are excellent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the Cabinet Office: Security and Intelligence Services Vote Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [151189]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class XVII, Vote 2 will be increased by £6,417,000 from £789,586,000 to £796,003,000 and the gross running cost limit will be increased by £2,121,000 from £422,648,000 to £424,769,000.

  The change is to effect transfers of £2,878,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Class VII, Vote 1), £1,534,000 from the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1) and £289,000 to the Scottish Executive, the take up of running costs end year flexibility of £2,065,000 and of current end year flexibility of £229,000 being partial take up of the entitlements announced in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (CM 4812) published on 18 July 2000.

  The increase will be offset by transfers and a charge to the DEL reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total public expenditure.

  Chester Street Holdings Limited
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to collate a joint response to the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and its impact on sufferers from asbestos-related diseases; and if he will make a statement. [148918]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Economic Secretary gave to him on 14 February 2001, Official Report, columns 181–82W.

CABINET OFFICE

  Honours System
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what criteria are applied to the selection of those who will be recognised by award of an honour. [149273]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.
  268W
  Candidates for honour are selected on merit based upon their achievements and quality of service in a wide range of areas of our national life.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to modify the system of nominations for honours. [149166]

  The Prime Minister
  I am replying to this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  There are currently no plans to modify the system. The honours nomination process is kept under review.

  Government IT Projects
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was paid to Compaq during its unsuccessful bid for the Government Gateway project; how much has so far been paid to Microsoft for services related to the project; and what the expected cost of the project is. [148656]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Compaq undertook work for the Cabinet Office and a final settlement figure of £5.6 million, including VAT, has been agreed. This includes £2.2 million worth of hardware that is to be redeployed throughout Government Departments.

  Details of specific payments to Microsoft and other suppliers remain commercially confident at this stage. We expect the first phase of the project to cost an additional £18.3 million, including VAT. This is within the project budget.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many official visits were carried out in the United Kingdom by Cabinet Ministers in(a) January 2000 and (b) January 2001; if she will list the location of each visit; and if she will make a statement; [150425]

  (2) how many ministerial visits have been made within London since January; on what dates and to which locations; which Ministers attended; and if she will make a statement; [150427]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the procedure used to decide the location of official ministerial visits; [150426]

  (4) what ministerial visits are planned in the next month; which Ministers will take part; and if she will make a statement. [150428]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Detailed information in the form requested for Ministers visits within the United Kingdom is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I and ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office aim to visit all regions of the country in support of Government policies that are national.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans her Department has to place all regulatory impact assessments on a single website. [150476]

  Mr. Stringer
  At present a list of regulatory impact assessments published since 1998 is available on the regulatory impact unit's website. We are currently
  269W
  developing plans to enable visitors to the regulatory impact unit's website to access RIAs via links to departmental websites.

  Central Office of Information
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has for a review of the Central Office of Information. [151195]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The last comprehensive review of the Central Office of Information (COI) was carried out in 1996–97. I have decided the next review of this agency should be completed early in 2001–02 and should be started as soon as possible. It will be conducted by Cabinet Office in close consultation with the chief executive and staff of the COI, under the general direction of a steering group.

  The COI is responsible for procuring communications for Government Departments and advising on media relations in the regions. This quinquennial review will follow Cabinet Office guidelines, which require the examination of prior options for the delivery of COI's services taking into account the performance of the agency and the views of its customers, suppliers and staff. It will assess the added value of COI, its role in relation to other Departments and arrangements for funding.

  The standard options are: continued agency status, privatisation, abolition, merger, contracting out and market testing. Each option will be considered on its merits and the preferred option will be the one that offers best value for money.

  Civil Service (Sickness Absence)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the overall level of sickness absence in the civil service was in 1999. [151194]

  Mr. Stringer
  The report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1999", prepared for my Department by Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (BioSS), shows that by applying the same methodology as in previous years the average level of sickness absence was 10.1 days per staff year. Calculated on the basis of absence per person, the figure for the civil service was 8.5 days. The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the 1999 figures.

  The figure of 10.1 days sickness absence per staff year represents an increase over the equivalent figure of 9.8 days set out in the report for 1998. However, as I explained in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 433W, a more accurate comparator for 1998 is the figure of 10.3 days which emerged after Departments own audits of their sickness absence systems had revealed an element of under-recording. On that basis, the figures show that there has been a small decrease in sickness absence per staff year in 1999 as compared with 1998.

  Departments have now published service delivery agreements which contain their individual targets for reducing sickness absence. Overall, the civil service has been targeted to reduce sickness absence by 20 per cent. for 2001 and by 30 per cent. for 2003 against the 1998
  270W
  baseline. My Department is continuing to work with other Departments and agencies as they take forward their plans to reduce sickness absence.

  I have placed copies of the BioSS report in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to increase consumer protection. [149012]

  Dr. Howells
  Taking forward our consumer White Paper proposals we have already increased consumer protection, particularly in areas such as distance selling and e-commerce. We are taking forward further measures now, including "stop now" orders and legislation for the full pint of beer

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the levels of spending on consumer protection 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. [150013]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 February 2001,Official Report, columns 701–02W.

  Earthquake (Gujarat)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the UK construction industry about making a trade visit to Gujarat to investigate how British companies may participate in the rebuilding programme there. [149013]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is still an emergency in Gujarat. The immediate priority is to ensure that the needs of the survivors for food, shelter and medical assistance are met. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has established an emergency assistance allocation of £10 million. Future planning for reconstruction of the affected area is essential and can begin once the requirements have been fully assessed. At this stage, it would be premature for the Government to promote commercial visits by UK construction companies, but we are keeping the situation under review, including through our small commercial team based in Ahmedabad, and are in close touch with the Indian authorities about their future requirements.

  Confidential Business Information
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the disclosure of confidential business information to other countries. [149014]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received representations from the Confederation of British Industry on this subject.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with the Post Office concerning the universal bank. [149015]
  271W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I regularly meet with the Post Office to discuss a range of issues.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the competitiveness of British manufacturing. [149016]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Manufacturing industry makes a vital contribution to the economy. We are helping manufacturing industries to be more competitive by creating a stable macroeconomic climate and by pursuing policies which help firms to innovate, to develop the skills of their work force and to grow.

  Company Directors' Liabilities
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to make company directors personally liable if they continue to trade while they are aware that their company is unable to honour contracts. [149017]

  Dr. Howells
  No. There are already provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986 under which directors of companies in insolvent liquidation may be ordered to contribute personally to the company's assets. This may arise, for example, where the company's business has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors or where the directors have carried on business when they knew or ought to have known that there was no prospect of the company avoiding liquidation.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between his Department and BAE Systems concerning the restructuring of the company. [149019]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department maintains a regular dialogue with BAE Systems on a wide range of issues. Following BAE Systems financial announcement to the stock exchange, I met with the chief executive of the company on 23 January.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made in settling miners' claims for respiratory disease compensation. [149020]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings),Official Report, column 446W. In Wales alone, we paid out £1 million in mining compensation last week. In Bridgend alone, we have already paid out over £5.5 million.

  Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of the Welsh sub-group of the national monitoring group. The sub-group is looking at ways of speeding up the process and the payment of compensation specifically in Wales.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have benefited from the compensation scheme for former mineworkers. [149029]
  272W
  Mr. Hain
  To date, some 43,100 claimants have received full and interim settlements in relation to claims for vibration-related diseases. In addition, a further 30,700 claimants have received full and interim settlements in relation to claims for respiratory disease.

  In total to date, the Department has paid out £332.5 million in coalmining compensation, and continues to pay out around £1 million a day.

  Exports (China)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage UK exports to China. [149021]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government, through Trade Partners UK, recently announced for 2001–02 the largest programme of supported activity ever for British companies in the China market. This will consist of 17 trade missions, 30 trade fair groups and eight sector-specific seminar initiatives during the year. This increased activity is in addition to the regular exchanges of ministerial visits to and from China of which my own visit earlier this month and that of the Deputy Prime Minister last October formed part. The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce visited China last month.

  Our activity in China is complemented by awareness-raising activity in the UK. Trade Partners UK, in close co-operation with the China-Britain Business Council (our official trade advisory group on China), is engaged in a two-year programme of events around the country to draw the attention of UK companies to business opportunities in China. These events are held in close co-operation with local partners such as trade associations and chambers of commerce.

  UK exports to China rose by 40 per cent. in 1999 over 1998 and by a further 22 per cent. in the first 11 months of 2000. 1 hope that the continued efforts I have described will improve on this performance still further.

  Manufacturing (South-West)
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the state of manufacturing in the south-west. [149023]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The performance of manufacturing industry in the south-west region has most recently been assessed by the CBI in its business strategies regional trends survey, dated November 2000.

  The Government office for the south-west is in regular contact with local and regional partners about business matters in the region.

  Centres of Expertise
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage business collaboration and to develop centres of expertise. [149024]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the White Paper "Opportunity for All in a World of Change", published earlier this week, the Department demonstrated its continuing commitment to supporting collaborative activity and centres of expertise.
  273W
  We announced support valued at £30 million over the next three years for five new regionally based university innovation centres, including one at the university of Warwick focusing on business-to-business e-commerce.

  We also announced the establishment of a new manufacturing advisory service in partnership with the regional development agencies, consisting of regional centres of manufacturing excellence and a supporting national network, to provide practical advice on manufacturing issues.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the contacts he has had with members of the Hinduja family. [149026]

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

  Energy Market Liberalisation
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to liberalise the energy market at(a) UK and (b) EU level. [149027]

  Mr. Hain
  UK electricity and gas markets are already liberalised. In addition, my Department is working closely with the regulator to reform the wholesale electricity market in England and Wales by replacing the electricity pool with more competitive trading arrangements. The target implementation date for the new electricity arrangements is 27 March.

  In Europe, the Commission will soon be proposing a new directive to accelerate the liberalisation of European electricity and gas markets. The UK Government will be urging a rapid move to a properly open and competitive electricity and gas market in Europe.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what abatement is available in the national minimum wage to those employers who provide board and lodging. [149030]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Following the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, there is no offset allowed for the provision of board when calculating whether the national minimum wage has been paid. There is a limited offset of up to £19.95 a week allowed against the national minimum wage to recognise the benefit of the provision of accommodation. I have asked the commission, as part of the terms of reference for its third report, to consider whether there is a case for making any change to the maximum accommodation offset. It is due to report its findings by July.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enforcement notices have been issued to employers to help enforce the national minimum wage. [150447]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Since the national minimum wage was introduced on 1 April 1999, the Inland Revenue, who enforce the minimum wage on behalf of the DTI, have issued 328 enforcement notices against employers.
  274W
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enforcement officers, region by region, are employed to police employers who pay less than the national minimum wage. [150446]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The allocation of resources to enforce the national minimum wage is agreed between the DTI and the Inland Revenue, and is covered by a service level agreement between the two Departments. There are presently 77 enforcement officers based in 14 teams across the United Kingdom. In addition there are a further 10 staff at the national minimum wage helpline and seven at the central information unit, both based in Longbenton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  The number of enforcement officers can be broken down into the following Inland Revenue regions:

  Inland Revenue Regions

  Number

  East Region

  6

  London Region

  13

  Northern Ireland

  5

  North Region

  7

  North West Region

  7

  Scotland

  8

  South East Region

  10

  South West Region

  5

  South Yorkshire Region

  6

  Wales and Midlands

  10

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many workers have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage in the Tooting parliamentary constituency; [144576]

  (2) how many workers in the Greater London area have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [144577]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 15 February 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of workers in Tooting and Greater London who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW) (144576,144577).
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These are based on an improved methodology using data from both the New Earnings Survey and Labour Force Survey. Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions, including Greater London, are available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour—market/nmw—1 owpay—tables.asp
  No estimates are available for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decline his Department forecasts in nuclear power output over the next 20 years as a result of planned nuclear power station closures. [149032]

  Mr. Hain
  The DTI has recently published UK energy projections for the period up until 20201. The baseline projections embody a rundown in nuclear output and

  275W
  capacity between 2000 and 2020 as existing stations reach the end of their lives. On an assumption of no new nuclear build, the projections are that by 2020 nuclear capacity will have fallen to 4GW and the annual electricity generated by the nuclear sector will have fallen to 27TWh. These translate into falls from current levels of 69 per cent. and 66 per cent. respectively.

  There is, of course, great uncertainty about the lifetimes of existing plant and hence future output levels. Plant lives will depend on the economics of continued production, which in turn will depend on the actions required of their owners to ensure safe operation.
  1 Energy Projections for the UK, 2000–20. Energy Paper 68. Published November 2000.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will made a statement on the latest position in talks between the Government and owners of steel production companies. [149033]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have had discussions with Corns on a wide range of issues and have assured the company of the Government's continuing support for the steel industry. In the period before Corus' recent announcement of 6,050 job cuts in the UK, the question of a package of support measures from the Government was raised with Corus, but the company made it clear that this would not change its decisions. The Government will continue to work with Corus and all parts of the steel industry to ensure the future competitiveness of the sector.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to maintain and enhance steel production in Britain. [149034]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The steel industry is a vital part of UK manufacturing and the Government will continue to work closely with all parts of the industry to ensure its future competitiveness. The Government stand ready to work alongside Corus, the trade unions and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a way forward that builds on the strengths of the industry and secures a long-term future for it in the UK.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Corus plc about Government support for the steel industry. [149036]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government continue to talk to steel companies about a wide range of issues. Specifically in relation to Corus, the largest UK steel production company, the Government are continuing to press the company to engage in constructive dialogue with the trade unions and others affected by the 1 February announcement of 6,050 job cuts in the UK.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 February 2001,Official Report, column 458, on the steel industry, what powers he will use to require Corus to pay the costs of the clean-up of the sites affected by its decision to close plants. [149760]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.
  276W
  Where any land, including sites where an industry has closed, poses unacceptable risks to humans or the environment in the light of the current use of the site, local authorities and the Environment Agency (or, in Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) have duties under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enforce remediation. Those who have caused or knowingly permitted the pollution are liable to carry out that remediation. Ministers have only appellate powers. In Wales, the National Assembly exercises these ministerial powers.

  When this new regime came into force, I wrote to top UK-registered companies asking about their plans to deal with contamination for which they are responsible, and was told by the chairman of Corus that they are committed to the economic redevelopment of brownfield sites.

  We therefore look forward to learning of Corus' proposals for ensuring that the sites affected by any closures are appropriately remediated and brought rapidly back into beneficial economic use and do not become derelict.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the restructuring of Corus. [150207]

  Mr. Byers
  I would be happy to meet the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from Corus about the long-term future of steel production at the plants in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [150232]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: I have had discussions with senior representatives of Corus on a number of occasions when we have discussed, among other issues, the long-term future of steel production at plants in Wales, Scotland and England.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown by region of the job losses in the steel industry announced by Corus on 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [150229]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: Following Corus's announcements about its planned restructuring of the company, I made a full statement to the House on 1 February 2001.

  A breakdown of job losses by business unit, indicating the location affected, based on information supplied by Corns is as follows.

  Plant/location

  Number of job losses

  Corus Strip, Llanwern, Wales

  1,540

  Corus Colours, Shotton,

  319

  Bryngwn, Wales

  127

  Corus Strip, Lackenby, Teesside

  234

  Corus Construction and Industrial Teesside

  648

  Scunthorpe

  436

  Dalzell, Scotland

  2

  Engineering Steels Rotherham

  87

  Stocksbridge

  45

  West Midlands and others

  1258

  277W

  Plant/location

  Number of job losses

  Construction and Industrial and Corus Engineering Steels Head Office/shared services (Teesside, Scunthorpe and Rotherham)

  400

  Stockholding (various locations)

  1292

  Rail, Workington

  27

  Special Profiles, Workington

  46

  Tubes Corby

  141

  Hartlepool/Stockton

  142

  West Midlands

  15

  Packaging Plus, Ebbw Vale

  780

  European Electrical Steels

  2276

  Special Strip Products Rotherham, Newport, West Midlands

  235

  Corporate Centre/Central Functions (various locations)

  2200

  1 Split across locations.

  2 Split across locations, breakdown not known

  Utility Charges
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on gas and electricity charges for pre-payment meter customers. [149035]

  Mr. Hain
  Charges for pre-payment meter customers are generally higher than those for direct debit and standard credit customers. This reflects the additional costs of supplying and maintaining the meters and the infrastructure that supports them.

  The Government recognise that pre-payment meter use is concentrated among the poorest members of society (although pensioners, who make up half of the fuel poor, are low pre-payment meter users). They attach considerable importance to reducing these costs and have put in place a number of measures to drive down prices. The Utilities Act 2000 gave Ofgem and the new Gas and Electricity Consumer Council a specific responsibility to have regard to the interests of vulnerable individuals, including those on low incomes. The Act also provides a reserve power to take action if some groups of customers are not benefiting to the same extent as others from the competitive market.

  The regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), has taken a number of measures to assist pre-payment meter customers following the publication of its social action plan last year. In April 2000, Ofgem introduced a licence condition that limited to £15 the surcharge that public electricity suppliers can charge to cover the cost of supplying electricity through prepayment meters. Ofgem's proposals for removing suppliers' rights to block transfers on the ground of debt are designed to improve access to the competitive market for pre-payment meter customers.

  Energy companies are developing programmes aimed at low income and disadvantaged customers. Some of these, including reduced charges, new energy efficiency programmes and improved access to other payment methods, will directly benefit pre-payment meter customers.

  Environmentally Friendly Policies
  Dr.Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making in encouraging UK industry to adopt environmentally friendly policies. [149037]

  Ms Hewitt
  As demonstrated by the increased investment and other measures announced in the White Paper "Creating Opportunities", the Government are committed to providing the conditions and, where appropriate, the support that will enable the UK to become a leading player in the new markets for green energy and products, waste minimisation, recycling and re-use.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from business organisations concerning late payments of bills. [149038]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to improving the payment culture in the UK and aim to build on the package of measures that have already been established.

  Departmental officials continue to work with business organisations and representatives from the banking, factoring, accountancy. trade credit insurance and credit management sectors on this issue through the better payment practice group.

  The Small Business Service has recently published a consultation document on changes to legislation required following the adoption of the directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions. Responses from business to that consultation will inform how the directive is best implemented.

  Regeneration (Clay Cross)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken since the closure of the former Biwater works at Clay Cross to help create alternative employment in the area and to regenerate the local economy; and if he will make a statement. [149018]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government Office for the East Midlands is co-ordinating the work of regional and local partners to ensure that effective support is being given to those made redundant. So far. over 150 have found jobs and a further 133 are being retrained to improve their employment prospects. A new business centre at Coney Green providing space for up to 50 businesses has been opened and phase 2 of this development has started. Plans to redevelop Clay Cross town centre are well advanced and this will provide further job opportunities.

  Miners' Pensions
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what surpluses have been received by the Government in each of the past five years from the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. [148130]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the terms of the guarantee/surplus sharing arrangements agreed with the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme (BCSSS) in 1994, the Government are entitled to receive 50 per cent.
  279W
  of any scheme surpluses. Annual Government receipts following surpluses at BCSSS valuations in 1995 and 1997 are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  0

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  39.5

  1997–98

  39.5

  1998–99

  107.1

  1999–2000

  107.1

  2000–01

  53.9

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid to the Government from the mineworkers' pension scheme surplus in each year since 1994. [148129]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the terms of the guarantee/surplus sharing arrangements agreed with the trustees of the mineworkers' pension scheme (MPS), the Government are entitled to receive 50 per cent. of any scheme surpluses. Annual Government receipts following surpluses at MPS valuation in 1996 and 1999 are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  0

  199596

  0

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  113

  1998–99

  113

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  257

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the surpluses to be paid to the Government from(a) the mineworkers' pension scheme and (b) the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, this year and in each of the next five years. [148131]

  Mr. Hain
  Prior to the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, the trustees of the two British Coal pension schemes (the mineworkers' pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme) reached agreement with HMG whereby the schemes were given HMG solvency guarantees that ensured that pension entitlements at privatisation would rise at least in line with inflation. As part of these arrangements the trustees receive, for distribution to scheme members, a 50 per cent. share of surpluses from periodic valuations usually carried out every three years. The remaining 50 per cent. is paid to HMG over a 10 year period.

  Current provisional estimates of surplus payments to Government from the coal pension schemes are as follows:

  £ million

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme

  2000–01

  257

  2001–02

  180

  2002–03

  180

  2003–04

  180

  2004–05

  180

  2005–06

  180

  280W

  £ million

  British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

  2000–01

  53.9

  2001–02

  c.200

  2002–03

  c.200

  2003–04

  c.200

  2004–05

  c.200

  2005–06

  c.200

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on research and development in each of the last 10 years. [149305]

  Mr. Hain
  I understand that this request refers to research and development in the gas industry. Unfortunately, the UK business enterprise research and development survey (carried out by the Office for National Statistics) does not collect information at this level. The survey collects aggregated information for business R&D performed in the electricity, gas and water supply industry (£137 million in 1999). Information on the topic is regularly published in "MA14: Research and Development in UK Business", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disused Mineshafts
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has received the report commissioned from Heriot-Watt University into the relationship between house values and mineshafts in Stoke. [149446]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department has received a near-final draft of the report by Heriot-Watt University, but there remain a few points which require clarification.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the recommendations made by the Trade and Industry Committee in its Seventh report of Session 1995–96(a) have been implemented and (b) are being implemented. [149445]

  Mr. Hain
  Recommendations 1, 2, 9, 11 and 12 of the Committee's report have been implemented. I am awaiting the outcome of the research by Heriot-Watt University on the relationship between former coal mineshafts and property values in Stoke-on-Trent before deciding whether to reconsider the remaining recommendations rejected by the previous Government, along with recommendation 8, which is dependent on the way in which the other recommendations are acted upon.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to compensate home owners whose properties are unsaleable or have suffered undue financial loss in value due to their proximity to disused mineshafts. [149510]

  Mr. Hain
  Where damage has been caused to property by disused coal mineshafts, home owners are entitled to have the damage made good, at no cost to themselves or their insurers, under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. I intend to consider whether there are any steps which the Government might be able to take to deal with other forms of loss connected with disused mineshafts in
  281W
  the light of the final report from Heriot-Watt University on the relationship between coal mineshafts and property values in Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish and respond to the report of the inquiry commissioned by his Department from. Edinburgh University into housing blight due to abandoned mineshafts. [149639]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department has received a near-final draft of the report from Heriot-Watt University on the relationship between former coal mineshafts and property values in Stoke-on-Trent, but there remain a few points which require clarification. I intend to publish and respond to the final report when I have had an opportunity to consider its findings.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the employer was of the quality control official at Sellafield who first detected the falsification of quality control data at the MDF plant at Sellafield. [149632]

  Mr. Hain
  As noted in the Health and Safety Executive's report published on 18 February 2000 on the events and issues surrounding the falsification of quality control data at BNFL's MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF), it was a member of BNFL's quality control team at MDF who first identified, and brought to the attention of quality control managers, similarities between successive sets of records for secondary MOX pellet diameters. I understand from BNFL that the individual concerned was, at that time, employed as a contractor to BNFL through the Employment Agency NRL. The individual has subsequently joined BNFL as a permanent member of staff.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the reasons were for the dismissal from BNFL last year of(a) Mr. John Taylor, (b) Mr. Ross Chiese, (c) Mr. David Coulston, (d) Mr. Roger Leek and (e) the non-executive directors; and what compensation terms they received. [149633]

  Mr. Hain
  I understand that Messrs Taylor, Chiese, Coulston and Leek left the company by mutual agreement following a review of management conducted by the chairman of BNFL designed to ensure greater management focus, transparency and accountability. As part of that review, the chairman announced that he was looking to refresh and strengthen his team of non-executive directors in the light of the different future needs of the company. All six of his then non-executive directors have now left the company.

  As members of the BNFL board, payments to John Taylor and Ross Chiese are published in the company's annual report and accounts and are therefore a matter of public record. They received £300,000 and £270,000 compensation respectively for termination of their employment. David Coulston and Roger Leek were employees of the company, but not members of the board. As such, any compensation was entirely a matter between the company and those individuals. The departing non-executive directors were not entitled to compensation for loss of office.
  282W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many BNFL(a) non-management employees, (b) managers, (c) senior managers and (d) directors who were granted voluntary severance terms were subsequently re-employed by BNFL as (i) consultants, (ii) contractors and (iii) employees; [149871]

  (2) how much money has been paid by BNFL under its voluntary severance terms in each year that the terms have been available; [149870]

  (3) how many BNFL (a) non-management employees, (b) managers, (c) senior managers and (d) directors applied for voluntary severance terms in (i) 1998. (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000; and how many of these applications have been granted. [149873]

  Mr. Hain
  These are matters for the company's management. I have asked the chief executive of BNFL to write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a draft order under section 59(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 relating to the provision in section 27A(8) and (9) of the Electricity Act 1989. [149661]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department plans to publish a draft order for consultation shortly.

  Legal and Accountancy Professions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the report of the Office of Fair Trading into the legal and accountancy professions; when he will publish the report; and if he will make a statement. [150002]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received the report. It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide when it is to be published.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about the sale of fireworks; what plans he has further to restrict the sale and use of fireworks; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current legislation on the control and use of fireworks; and if he will make a statement. [150022]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received a total of 361 representations on firework safety matters during the period 1 September 2000 to 31 January 2001, comprising 155 letters from parliamentary colleagues, six parliamentary questions and 200 letters from the public.

  The Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides powers to deal with the intrinsic safety of goods, including fireworks, but not to regulate when they are sold or used. The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public. I have made no formal assessment of the effectiveness of the 1997 regulations, but my Department continues to monitor movements in the annual firework injury statistics.

  Post Office Services
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Girobank contract with Post Office Counters Ltd. prevents POCL giving better prices to clients wishing to use bill payment services for their customers at post office counters. [149846]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office is in partnership with Girobank for the provision of over-the-counter bill payment services. The terms of this contractual relationship are commercially confidential under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Coal Mine Methane
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential for energy generation from coal mine methane. [150101]

  Mr. Hain
  The Coal Authority monitors for methane emissions at over 100 sites and this information is made available to coal mine methane operators and other interested parties on request.

  Operators have shown considerable interest in several of the sites and are currently evaluating the potential for commercial gas extraction. To date, schemes are operational at five Coal Authority sites:

  Shirebrook

  Markham

  Steetley

  Hinkleton

  Sliverdale.

  Enterprise Skills and Innovation
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning the publication of the White Paper on enterprise skills and innovation "Opportunity for all in a world of change" (Cm 5052). [150692]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper on enterprise, skills and innovation "Opportunity for all in a world of change", was published jointly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and me on 13 February 2001.

  At the request of Mr. Speaker, I have investigated a number of matters.

  It appears that elements of a draft version of the text of the White Paper—but not the final version—were obtained by the Financial Times prior to publication. I share Mr. Speaker's concern about this matter. However, I have investigated this and can confirm that no advance copies of the White Paper were made available to the media by my Department or by the Department for Education and Employment prior to the day of publication.

  The House was informed of the publication of the White Paper in a written parliamentary question at 8.30 am on 13 February. Publication of the White Paper was announced to the media at a press conference which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I held at 12.30 pm on 13 February.
  284W
  The White Paper was laid before Parliament at 11.00 am. Copies of the White Paper were due to be delivered to the Vote Office of the House for release at 11.00 am. Unfortunately, these were delivered late by The Stationery Office with the result that copies were not available in the House until noon. The delay in delivering copies of the White Paper to the House was very regrettable and my Department has asked for procedures to be put in place by The Stationery Office to ensure that such a delay is not repeated in future.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance the Government give to(a) householders and (b) businesses towards the installation of solar energy devices. [150266]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: The White Paper on enterprise, skills and innovation, published on 13 February, includes a major initiative for a solar photovoltaic (PV) demonstration programme to bring us in line with those of our main competitors. The aim is to support the installation of PV arrays on the roofs and walls of domestic homes and medium and large-scale non-domestic buildings. This should enable the establishment of a high-tech industry of the future in the UK with the potential to challenge our main competitors in this field, Japan, Germany, and the US.

  The new proposal complements current Government support for field trials for domestic and large-scale building-integrated PV systems. In addition, since April 2000, a reduction of VAT from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. has been available for professionally installed solar panels.

  Writers Copyright
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he is taking to ensure an equitable return to writers for the re-use of their work; [150543]

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding provisions in the draft copyright directive affecting the interest of writers in the re-use of their material by broadcasters. [150542]

  Dr. Howells
  The Council of Ministers reached a common position on this draft directive last September on the basis of a text which we fully support and which was also endorsed by the Commission. This does not contain any provision addressing re-use of material by broadcasters, but the directive is currently undergoing its Second Reading in the European Parliament, where an amendment has been proposed which would permit member states to provide an exception to rights allowing broadcasters to use archive material in new services without right owners' consent, provided they receive remuneration. We do not consider this amendment appropriate or desirable, and we believe that writers and other right owners should continue to be able to exercise their rights to control re-use of their material in order that they can obtain a fair return for this. The Council has also to agree on the content of the directive before it can be finally adopted.

  Objective 1
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the four European objective 1 regional programme delivery bodies. [149005]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has received any recent request to meet representatives of the objective 1 delivery bodies. However, our Department is in touch with the English objective 1 regions through the Government offices and regional development agencies, and also liaises with the devolved Administrations.

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000-01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149266]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Direct mail expenditure excluding postage through COI

  £ (ex VAT)

  Financial year

  Amount

  1997–98

  19,081.00

  1998–99

  34,628.00

  1999–2000

  1150,018.66

  2000–01

  6,375.00

  1 Includes costs of £119,831.66 for direct mail campaigns to promote export awareness of information technology among small businesses

  2 As up to 31 January 2001

  Direct mail costs were not separately identified before 1997–98.

  It is not possible to identify a separate figure for public opinion research.

  Television, radio and newspaper advertising through COI

  £ (ex VAT)

  Period

  TV1

  Radio

  Press

  1996–97

  —

  477,697.00

  1,190,332.00

  1997–98

  —

  320,319.00

  1,987,233.00

  1998–99

  —

  136,613.00

  2,008,075.00

  1999–2000

  15,250.00

  242,166.00

  842,027.00

  2000–012

  1,919,559.00

  792,044.00

  2,147,097.00

  1 All TV advertising relates to the National Minimum Wage campaign

  2 As up to 31 January 2001

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for his Department, British Trade International and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. [151104]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £92,052,000 286W
  from £3,591,516,000 to £3,683,568,000. In addition, the gross Running Costs Limit will be increased by £771,000 from £412,915,000 to £413,686,000.

  The net provision of Class IX, Vote 1, which falls within the Departmental Expenditure Limit, will be increased by £62,751,000, which results from:

  (i) the take up of end year flexibility of £70.498,000 comprising £8,000,000 for capital expenditure and £62,498,000 for current expenditure, of which £45,340,000 will be added to the provisions for Coal Operating Subsidy, £9,000,000 for Employment Relations, £8,000,000 for Regional Selective Assistance, £5,000,000 for the Regional Development Agencies, £1,750,000 for Invest UK and Aid in Yugoslavia, and £1,408,000 for consultancy advice on implementing the Postal Services Act;

  (ii) the transfer of £1,583,000 in running costs and £190,000 in capital expenditure provision from the Department of Trade and Industry's Science Vote (Class IX, Vote 2);

  (iii) the transfer of £700,000 in gross provision from British Trade International (Class IX, Vote 4) in respect of the expenditure of Simpler Trade Procedures Board (SITPRO);

  (iv) the transfer of £105,000 in running costs from MAFF (Class X, Vote 2) for the administration of the Farm Business Advice Service;

  (v) the transfer of £8.000,000 to Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III, Vote 1) to enable Advantage West Midlands to take forward work in connection with the Rover Task Force;

  (vi) the transfer of £1.750,000 to British Trade International (Class IX, Vote 4) for claims for additional expenditure for Invest UK and for assistance to Yugoslavia;

  (vii) the transfer of £500,000 to Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III, Vote 3) in respect of the Fuel Poverty Scheme;

  (viii) the transfer of £75,000 to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Class IX, Vote 10) to cover the costs for implementing the Climate Change Levy exemption for electricity from renewable sources during this financial year;

  (ix) an increase of £1,257,000 in running costs and capital expenditure provision in respect of expenditure incurred on behalf of the Postal Services Commission before 6 November 2000, offset by an equivalent amount in appropriations in aid;

  (x) an increase of £2,097,000 in the gross expenditure provision, which is offset by an equivalent increase in appropriations in aid which relates to increased lease fees paid by the Department on capital assets and an increase in the sales of scientific equipment to Royal Bank Ltd.;

  (xi) other minor movements within and between Sections of the Vote.

  The net provision of Class IX, Vote 2, which falls within the Departmental Expenditure Limit, will be increased by £1,000, which results from:
  (i) the take up of end year flexibility of £1,774,000 in current expenditure, which is offset by the transfer of £1,583.000 of running cost and £ 190.000 of capital expenditure from Sections I and J to the Department of Trade and Industry's Programmes and Administration Vote (Class IX, Vote 1);
  (ii) increases in provision of £11,071,000 for Section K (Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council); £3,900,000 for Section 0 (Natural Environment Research Council); £3,900,000 for Section S (Science Enterprise Challenge Scheme). These increases are offset by reductions in provision for Section F (University Challenge Fund); Section G (Synchrotron Radiation Source); and Section H (Cambridge/Massachusetts Institute of Technology);
  (iii) further minor movements of programme provision between Vote Sections.
  287W
  In addition, the Departmental Expenditure Limit of the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by a further £29,300,000 through take up of part of the EYF entitlement of £147,680,000 announced for European Structural Funds expenditure for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper Cm 4812 published on 18 July 2000. This will meet DTI's share of the additional expenditure now forecast for 2000–01 on projects funded from the European Regional Development Fund.

  Also, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for British Trade International, Class IX, Vote 4, will be increased by £1,050,000 from £85,643,000 to £86,693,000. This gives effect to the following changes of provision relating to

  (i) the transfer of £700,000 in gross provision to the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1) in respect of the expenditure of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board (SITPRO);

  (ii) the transfer of £1,750,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1) for claims for additional expenditure for Invest UK (formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau) and to provide assistance to Yugoslavia via the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Task Force.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), Class IV, Vote 1) to fund work on the Climate Change Levy. Ofgem is also reflecting in its spring Supplementary Estimate, the transfer of functions, assets and liabilities from the Director General of Gas Supply and the Director General of Electricity Supply to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, under the provisions of the Utilities Act 2000. Provision is also made for payments to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in respect of the creation of the authority, and the transfer of responsibility for the Electricity Consumer Committees to Energywatch, which is funded from DTI's Programmes and Administration Vote (Class IX Vote 1).

  All of the increases will either be offset by transfer or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Industrial Clusters
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy of support for industrial clusters. [149028]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government recognise the importance of clusters and networks and are working closely with the RDAs to identify and remove barriers to their growth and development. In the White Paper "Opportunity for all in a world of change", published on 13 February, the Government set out their proposals to promote the growth of successful clusters by asking the RDAs to develop strategies for success for their regions, building on their existing strengths. They will do so with the assistance of a clusters map and consultants' report, "UK Business Clusters: A First Assessment", which was also published on 13 February.
  288W
  Government funding for cluster development will continue to be provided to RDAs via the regional innovation fund. Continued work on clusters will be undertaken by Lord Sainsbury's clusters policy steering group.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 499W, when the index of regulation on small business will be published. [150475]

  Mr. Byers
  When a number of outstanding issues have been resolved.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices closed in(a) the third quarter of 2000–01 and (b) cumulatively in 2000–01. [149888]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on 14 February 2001, Official Report, column 136W.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to deal with the difficulties faced by the textile industry in the United Kingdom. [149022]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a package of support for the textiles and clothing industry in the form of a 12-point plan on 6 June 2000. This was an initial response to the report of the textile and clothing strategy group and included:

  The establishment of a major new supply chain initiative for the industry;

  Temporary relaxation of the rules for trade fair support to enable more textiles and clothing companies to receive assistance:

  The establishment of more projects to help the technical textiles sector;

  A major programme of re-skilling for the textiles and clothing industry;

  Support for up and coming new designers.

  In addition, the Government provide a wide range of support for industry, including regional selective assistance and SMART awards. This support is available to textiles and clothing companies.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the programme of visits to central and eastern Europe planned for Ministers in his Department. [149011]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science will visit Poland on 19–20 February. The overseas visit programme for DTI Ministers for the second half of this year is currently under consideration.
  289W
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), will be visiting Lithuania in March on trade and investment issues.

  Goodyear (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from Goodyear Wolverhampton in respect of Government assistance; and if he will make a statement. [149001]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received no representations from Goodyear in Wolverhampton in respect of Government assistance. Currently, the management and unions at Goodyear are involved in discussions that offer the prospect of improving the cost base of the plant.

  EU Trade Balance
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trends in the trade balance with the European Union. [149025]

  Mr. Caborn
  The EU is the most important market for UK exports of goods and services. The EU accounts for over 50 per cent. of total UK exports. During 2000, the UK's bilateral trade (in goods) with the rest of the EU was broadly in balance. This contrasts with a modest deficit which prevailed for much of the 1990s.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources are available to enforce the working time directive. [149031]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The working time regulations, which implement the European working time directive, provide for the entitlements to daily, weekly and in-work rest and paid annual leave to be enforced through the Employment Tribunals. The working time limits are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and local authorities. There is a network of local authority enforcement officers who enforce the working time regulations and other health and safety legislation. The HSE have regulatory teams based throughout the country, which include specialist working time officers who work solely on working time enforcement. Any significant risks to health and safety revealed by their investigations are referred to HSE inspectors.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking in relation to access to offshore oil and gas infrastructure to promote exploration and development in the United Kingdom continental shelf. [151187]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a consultation document from my Department dealing with access to oil and gas infrastructure, which:consults on the effectiveness of the industry's code of practice on third party access to offshore infrastructure;
  seeks evidence of any anti-competitive behaviour in relation to third party access to oil and gas infrastructure;
  290W
  provides informal guidance which the industry has sought to meet a requirement of the 1998 gas directive to publish main commercial conditions for access to onshore gas terminals;
  makes proposals for publication of guiding principles on the use of legal powers to settle disputes over access by third parties to oil and gas upstream infrastructure, which will reduce industry uncertainty about the regulatory regime.
  My Department's proposals in the consultation document are intended to encourage a pro-competitive environment in relation to third party access to oil and gas transportation and processing.

  We believe it is important to establish whether there are any barriers to development of new and marginal fields and, if so, to address them. The consultation on the effectiveness of the industry's voluntary code of practice gives an opportunity to see if the negotiation and level of third party tariffs is causing problems. If, as a result of this greater clarity, future tariffs are better aligned with costs, there will be better use of the UK's oil and gas infrastructure, which will increase the exploitation of our reserves, enhancing security of supply for consumers.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensions (Overseas Residents)
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 79W, if he will break down by each country of residence the number of pensioners living abroad who receive (a) a frozen pension, and (b) an annually up-rated pension. [148504]

    Mr. Rooker
    Retirement pension can normally be paid anywhere. However, annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. The exception is those countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements, that is EEA countries and countries covered by the appropriate legislation.

    Retirement pensioners by overseas country with annually uprated pension at 31 March 2000

    Thousand

    All cases

    All

    377.7

    Austria

    4.3

    Barbados

    3.6

    Belgium

    4.1

    Bermuda

    0.7

    Channel Islands

    13.3

    Cyprus

    6.1

    Denmark

    0.9

    France

    16.2

    Germany

    25.0

    Gibraltar

    0.7

    Greece

    1.7

    Ireland, Republic of

    84.1

    Israel

    3.0

    Italy

    25.7

    Jamaica

    22.0

    Malta

    2.6

    Netherlands

    5.7

    Norway

    0.8

    Portugal

    3.9

    Spain

    39.4

    Sweden

    1.2

    291W

    Retirement pensioners by overseas country with annually uprated pension at 31 March 2000

    Thousand

    All cases

    Switzerland

    3.1

    USA

    107.0

    Rest of the world

    2.8

    Retirement pensioners by overseas country with frozen rate pension at 31 March 2000

    Thousand

    All cases

    All

    460.9

    Australia

    213.9

    Bangladesh

    3.0

    Canada

    137.9

    Dominica Commonwealth

    1.2

    Ghana

    0.5

    Grenada

    1.3

    Hong Kong

    1.0

    India

    4.2

    New Zealand

    33.7

    Nigeria

    1.1

    Pakistan

    6.1

    Poland

    2.0

    South Africa

    34.1

    St. Kitts-Nevis

    0.6

    St. Lucia

    1.2

    St. Vincent and Grenadines

    0.7

    Trinidad and Tobago

    0.9

    Yemen, Republic of

    2.8

    Zimbabwe

    5.0

    Rest of the world

    9.8

    Notes:

    1. The figures quoted are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. Information is taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the Pension Strategy Computer System arid therefore may not include all countries.

    3. Countries with fewer than 500 rated cases have been added together and shown under? Rest of the world'.

    Source:

    5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

    Council Tax Benefit
    Mr. Charles Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will alter the formula for calculating interest on capital in determining an individual's eligibility for Council Tax Benefit so that it more accurately reflects the interest that might reasonably be expected to be earned from that capital; and if he will make a statement. [147578]

    Angela Eagle
    We have already made arrangements to increase the lower capital limit from £3,000 to £6,000 from April 2001 for those on the Minimum Income Guarantee, and for those aged 60 or over on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This is part of our commitment to continue the drive to end pensioner poverty. With the introduction of the proposed Pension Credit from 2003, we propose to abolish both the current capital limits and the assumed £1 a week rate of return for every £250 of capital, and to replace this with a system that ensures that those who have saved are rewarded for their efforts in their retirement.
    292W
    At the same time, we will also be looking at the treatment of income and capital in assessing entitlement to support for working-age families, including those on Council Tax Benefit, as part of our programme of modernising the social security and tax credit system.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Special Advisers working for him will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149309]

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

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Derek Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Halton have received the £200 Winter Fuel Payment. [150292]

    Mr. Rooker
    Winter Fuel Payments are made on a household basis. For the latest information available on the number of payments made in Halton, I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 238W.

    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many winter fuel applications were received from those aged 60 years or over on 19 September 1999; how many were received from 24 September 2000 to 31 January 2001; and how many had been processed by 31 January 2001; [150590]

    (2) what the processing time is of applications made for a Winter Fuel Payment in respect of this and previous years; [150592]

    (3) how many winter fuel applications were received between April 2000 and 22 September 2000; how many were received (a) from those reaching the age of 60 years between 27 September 1999 and 24 September 2000 and (b) from those aged 60 years or over on 19 September 1999; and what was the total processed in both categories. [150589]

    Mr. Rooker
    The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.

    Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 15 February 2001:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many Winter Fuel applications were received from those aged 60 or over on 19 September 1999; how many were received from 24 September 2000 to 31 January 2001; and how many had been processed by 31 January 2001. How Many Winter Fuel applications were received between April 2000 and 22 September 2000; how many were received (a) from those reaching the age of 60 years between 27 September 1999 and 24 September 2000 and (b) from those aged 60 years or over on 19 September 1999; and what was the total processed in both categories. Also what is the processing time of applications made for a winter fuel payment in respect of this and previous years.
    The information is not available in the format requested. Information that is available is as follows.

    293W
    Between April 2000 and 22 September 2000 1,185,131 claims forms were received and between 24 September 2000 and 31 January 2001 156,104 claims forms were received.
    As of 31 January 2001, approximately 1.1 million claims in respect of previous years and approximately 1.2 million winter 2000 claims had been processed. The total number of claims processed is higher than the number of forms received as a single claim form can potentially be a claim for both a Winter 2000 payment and payment for previous years.
    A straightforward Winter Fuel claim takes up to 10 days to process from the date of receipt by the Department.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. James Little will receive his Winter Fuel Payment. [150346]

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

    Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 14 February 2001:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding Mr. James Little and when he will receive his Winter Fuel Payment (WFP).
    My enquiries into this matter have revealed that Mr. Little had not been sent his WFP at the correct time. This was due to a clerical oversight and I have written to Mr. Little to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the delay.
    I have, after the matter was brought to my attention, taken steps to ensure that Mr. Little's payment has been dealt with promptly and I can now confirm that it was posted (by first class mail) on 9 February.

    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake additional national advertising to alert men who on 24 September 2000 were over 60 years of age of their possible entitlement to Winter Fuel Payments for this and past years; and if he will make a statement. [150591]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 79W.

    Pensioners (Benefits)
    Mr. Rapson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of retirement pensioners who are expected to be entitled to the pension credit; and of those, how many are also expected to be(a) entitled to (i) Housing Benefit, (ii) Council Tax Benefit and (iii) both and (b) liable to pay income tax. [150066]

    Mr. Rooker
    Over half of all pensioners, 5.5 million individual pensioners and pensioner couples, will benefit from the pension credit.

    The detailed design and coverage of the pension credit are being considered in the light of the current consultation exercise.

    Mr. Rapson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners are currently 294W
    (a) entitled to income-related benefits but not liable to income tax and (b) entitled to income-related benefits and liable to pay income tax. [150067]

    Mr. Rooker
    The informatton is not available.

    War Pension Scheme
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the seven-year rule relating to the war pension scheme was introduced; and how it was announced to the House. [150532]

    Mr. Bayley
    The seven-year rule was introduced in May 1947 as an amendment to the 1946 Royal Warrant under Command Paper 7124.

    Far East Prisoners of War
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) former UK military personnel and (b) civilians imprisoned by the Japanese during the second world war have applied for the ex-gratia payment; and how many have been refused in each category; [150577]

    (2) how many civilian internees imprisoned by the Japanese during the second world war, who at the time were not UK citizens but who subsequently were given British nationality, have been refused the ex-gratia payment. [150578]

    Mr. Bayley
    The information is not yet available. Figures will be available in due course.

    Mobility Benefit
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what date applications can be lodged for the higher rate mobility component for children aged three and four years; and who is entitled to this benefit from 9 April. [149914]

    Mr. Bayley
    I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 477W. From 9 April 2001, the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will be extended to severely disabled three and four-year-old children who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk.

    Claims can be made at any time on or after 9 January. Almost all the children most likely to benefit from this welcome change are already receiving DLA in respect of their care needs, and they will all be sent a letter by the end of February inviting them to apply for the higher rate mobility component.

    Child Support
    Ms Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many parents with care who are eligible for maintenance payments through the Child Support Agency receive the Working Families Tax Credit; [149850]

    (2) how many parents with care in receipt of maintenance payments through the Child Support Agency are non-resident parents who are liable to pay maintenance for children of previous relationships. [149851]
    295W
    Angela Eagle
    The information Is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

    There are 234,000 parents with care with a current full maintenance assessment who are receiving the Working Families Tax Credit. This represents around 24 per cent. of all such parents with care on the Child Support Agency's books.
    Notes:
    1. Information on the number of parents with care who are also non-resident parents is not available since there is no facility on the existing child support computer system for linking data in this way.
    2. Figures are taken from 5 per cent. scan of the Child Support Computer System and are rounded to the nearest hundred.
    Source:
    Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics—August 2000, Department of Social Security Information Centre, Analytical Services Division.

    Appeal Tribunals
    Mr. Healey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security appeal tribunal hearings concerning cohabitation or living together as man and wife cases there were in each of the last five years; and in what percentage the tribunal found in favour of the client. [149450]

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

    Appeals heard in the periods shown with an issue code of "Living Together" from 1 October 1998

    Appeals cleared at hearing

    Appeals decided in favour of the appellant

    1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998

    n/a

    1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999

    874

    354 (40.5 per cent.)

    1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000

    1,311

    681 (51.9 per cent.)

    Notes:

    1. Issue codes were only added to the GAPS system in November 1999, although some earlier cases have been coded.

    2. Figures are provisional and are subject to change.

    Source:

    100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service GAPS computer system.

    Gross weekly earnings for unitary authorities in Scotland

    £

    Median1

    Lowest decile2

    Highest decile3

    Full-time

    Non-manual

    Aberdeen City

    404.8

    227.5

    844.4

    Aberdeenshire

    396.6

    191.9

    738.6

    Angus

    368.5

    201.0

    550.3

    Dundee City

    347.4

    205.9

    638.3

    East Ayrshire

    381.6

    186.3

    584.8

    Edinburgh, City of

    379.3

    211.2

    706.7

    Falkirk

    322.7

    204.3

    681.4

    Fife

    348.2

    195.3

    592.6

    Glasgow City

    359.2

    205.4

    690.6

    Highland

    316.3

    183.3

    592.9

    Midlothian

    398.6

    243.7

    617.5

    North Ayrshire

    381.0

    192.1

    571.0

    North Lanarkshire

    359.9

    212.7

    608.8

    Perth and Kinross

    332.0

    183.9

    526.1

  TREASURY

    Earnings Statistics
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for Scotland and each local authority area in Scotland(a) the weekly median earnings and (b) the amount of median earnings for those in the first and ninth deciles for (i) all manual, (ii) all non-manual and (iii) all workers. [146247]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 15 February 2001:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on weekly earnings for workers in Scotland and the local authorities in Scotland (146247).
    The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. However, the NES has incomplete coverage of those on low pay because the sample is limited to people earning above the income tax threshold. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided the available data for Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland in the attached tables, only where the samples are large enough and have an acceptable level of accuracy. These are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

    Gross weekly earnings for Scotland

    £

    Median1

    Lowest decile2

    Highest decile3

    Full-time

    Non-manual

    363.2

    202.8

    673.3

    Manual

    289.3

    171.5

    479.0

    All Employees

    330.0

    190.0

    608.3

    Part-time

    Non-manual

    123.9

    51.9

    270.1

    Manual

    91.0

    39.2

    159.7

    All Employees

    108.8

    45.2

    233.4

    All

    Non-manual

    301.6

    112.5

    619.5

    Manual

    250.0

    77.6

    447.7

    All Employees

    280.8

    99.1

    564.9

    1 50th percentile

    2 10th percentile

    3 90th percentile

    297W

    Gross weekly earnings for unitary authorities in Scotland

    £

    Median1

    Lowest decile2

    Highest decile3

    Renfrewshire

    379.6

    180.7

    648.7

    South Ayrshire

    369.7

    206.3

    681.5

    South Lanarkshire

    367.7

    191.9

    706.4

    West Lothian

    393.6

    192.2

    780.3

    Manual

    Aberdeen City

    325.0

    180.0

    603.7

    Aberdeenshire

    277.0

    150.0

    464.8

    Scottish Borders, The

    246.9

    173.3

    358.5

    Dumfries and Galloway

    275.0

    155.7

    397.2

    Dundee City

    271.7

    176.4

    439.0

    East Ayrshire

    294.3

    168.3

    443.2

    Edinburgh, City of

    275.5

    159.4

    477.5

    Falkirk

    336.0

    162.2

    574.1

    Fife

    287.0

    171.7

    449.1

    Glasgow City

    292.3

    176.5

    464.3

    Highland

    287.9

    192.6

    512.1

    Inverclyde

    308.3

    185.1

    445.8

    North Ayrshire

    295.3

    161.5

    451.1

    North Lanarkshire

    294.6

    180.9

    481.4

    Perth and Kinross

    274.3

    180.5

    466.8

    Renfrewshire

    327.7

    173.5

    528.5

    South Ayrshire

    300.4

    188.6

    499.9

    South Lanarkshire

    308.3

    188.7

    522.5

    Stirling

    285.8

    164.5

    392.5

    West Lothian

    300.0

    177.1

    510.8

    All Employees

    Aberdeen City

    376.1

    203.8

    762.2

    Aberdeenshire

    308.3

    168.7

    630.8

    Angus

    302.2

    182.8

    536.3

    Argyll and Bute

    345.8

    188.9

    602.0

    Scottish Borders, The

    276.6

    176.3

    528.5

    Dumfries and Galloway

    291.4

    172.4

    510.4

    Dundee City

    322.3

    195.3

    565.7

    East Ayrshire

    328.1

    182.3

    569.6

    East Lothian

    345.3

    198.9

    561.6

    Edinburgh, City of

    345.5

    198.7

    679.9

    Falkirk

    325.0

    189.1

    621.7

    Fife

    311.9

    181.6

    537.2

    Glasgow City

    339.3

    194.9

    646.1

    Highland

    304.2

    188.3

    564.1

    Inverclyde

    323.3

    194.8

    592.5

    Midlothian

    350.7

    201.5

    562.1

    North Ayrshire

    321.5

    178.3

    540.2

    North Lanarkshire

    323.0

    202.9

    575.8

    Perth and Kinross

    294.3

    182.3

    491.4

    Renfrewshire

    355.9

    179.6

    626.4

    South Ayrshire

    344.7

    203.7

    640.8

    South Lanarkshire

    334.4

    190.8

    638.8

    Stirling

    297.1

    176.8

    497.2

    West Lothian

    332.7

    189.3

    614.7

    Part-time

    Non-manual

    Edinburgh, City of

    124.0

    43.7

    269.3

    Glasgow City

    116.6

    56.0

    237.2

    Manual

    Glasgow City

    94.1

    42.6

    156.5

    All Employees

    Edinburgh, City of

    106.9

    38.4

    229.3

    Glasgow City

    106.3

    48.6

    217.4

    South Lanarkshire

    112.2

    50.2

    194.2

    All

    Non-manual

    Aberdeen City

    345.5

    118.9

    767.8

    Angus

    270.7

    113.1

    535.7

    Dundee City

    294.0

    112.0

    577.6

    Edinburgh, City of

    327.9

    138.7

    687.0

    Falkirk

    268.7

    113.8

    621.7

    Fife

    286.6

    105.4

    567.3

    Glasgow City

    307.1

    115.3

    652.4

    Highland

    264.9

    117.4

    550.9

    North Ayrshire

    306.8

    91.4

    541.6

    North Lanarkshire

    313.2

    129.7

    583.4

    Perth and Kinross

    260.3

    97.3

    483.3

    298W 299W

    Gross weekly earnings for unitary authorities in Scotland

    £

    Median1

    Lowest decile2

    Highest decile3

    Renfrewshire

    327.2

    137.2

    629.6

    South Ayrshire

    322.6

    90.1

    646.9

    South Lanarkshire

    287.9

    113.9

    639.7

    West Lothian

    333.5

    140.4

    658.7

    Manual

    Aberdeen City

    249.0

    77.5

    529.1

    Aberdeenshire

    210.7

    55.4

    390.9

    Dumfries and Galloway

    251.1

    82.7

    387.0

    Dundee City

    244.1

    89.6

    424.4

    Edinburgh, City of

    230.0

    73.0

    453.3

    Fife

    250.5

    92.3

    432.0

    Glasgow City

    249.6

    79.4

    429.1

    Highland

    260.8

    64.3

    470.2

    North Lanarkshire

    256.7

    73.7

    448.5

    Renfrewshire

    287.1

    92.0

    503.6

    South Lanarkshire

    261.8

    76.9

    491.5

    West Lothian

    287.2

    115.2

    471.7

    All Employees

    Aberdeen City

    317.5

    104.9

    695.2

    Aberdeenshire

    249.2

    66.8

    558.2

    Angus

    248.6

    103.6

    499.0

    Argyll and Bute

    261.0

    74.0

    546.1

    Scottish Borders, The

    236.6

    85.1

    490.4

    Dumfries and Galloway

    257.3

    88.9

    475.9

    Dundee City

    275.0

    106.1

    521.1

    East Ayrshire

    276.4

    87.6

    541.0

    Edinburgh, City of

    296.4

    107.6

    634.9

    Falkirk

    283.5

    95.1

    574.5

    Fife

    266.0

    99.2

    508.7

    Glasgow City

    285.3

    100.3

    588.8

    Highland

    262.7

    88.4

    517.1

    Inverclyde

    265.0

    89.9

    490.2

    Midlothian

    294.5

    101.9

    548.0

    North Ayrshire

    278.6

    84.9

    490.4

    North Lanarkshire

    286.3

    105.0

    551.7

    Perth and Kinross

    253.8

    85.8

    475.9

    Renfrewshire

    312.2

    121.0

    602.0

    South Ayrshire

    284.7

    74.1

    564.8

    South Lanarkshire

    269.0

    102.8

    591.1

    West Lothian

    297.2

    132.6

    578.3

    1 50th percentile

    2 10th percentile

    3 90th percentile

    Mr. Grieve
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average weekly earnings are(a) including and (b) excluding overtime, for part-time workers in (i) Scotland, (ii) each of the local t nitary local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) the UK, broken down by (A) men and (B) women in (1) manual employment, (2) non-manual employment and (3) all employment [145664]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    This information falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Dominic Grieve, dated 15 February 2001:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on weekly earnings for workers in Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and the United Kir gdom (145664).
    The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. However, the NES has incomplete coverage of those on low pay, because the sample is largely limited to people earning above the income tax threshold. This under-coverage will particularly affect results for part-time workers. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees and have an acceptable
    300W
    level of accuracy. The data for the United Kingdom is not yet available. I have provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain in the attached tables, where the sample sizes are large enough and have an acceptable level of accuracy. These are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

    Average weekly gross earnings including overtime for part-time employees for Great Britain

    £

    Male:

    Non-manual

    163.6

    Manual

    114.3

    All

    142.3

    Female:

    Non-manual

    144.5

    Manual

    94.2

    All

    129.7

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    147.2

    Manual

    98.8

    All

    131.8

    301W

    Average weekly gross earnings including overtime for part-time employees for Scotland

    £

    Male:

    Manual

    106.5

    All

    123.7

    Female:

    Non-manual

    146.4

    Manual

    94.8

    All

    129.0

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    145.6

    Manual

    97.1

    All

    128.2

    Average weekly gross earnings including overtime for part-time employees for unitary authorities in Scotland

    £

    Edinburgh, City of

    Glasgow City

    South Lanarkshire

    Female:

    Non-manual

    142.3

    136.4

    —

    All

    126.8

    124.6

    118.6

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    143.4

    134.9

    —

    Manual

    —

    98.7

    —

    All

    128.5

    122.7

    118.3

    Average weekly gross earnings excluding overtime for Great Britain

    £

    Male:

    Non-manual

    155.8

    Manual

    104.8

    All

    133.7

    Female:

    Non-manual

    137.7

    Manual

    89.2

    All

    123.5

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    140.2

    Manual

    92.7

    All

    125.2

    Average weekly gross earnings excluding overtime for Scotland

    £

    Male:

    Manual

    97.1

    All

    113.9

    Female:

    Non-manual

    140.4

    Manual

    88.9

    All

    123.0

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    139.1

    Manual

    90.5

    All

    121.7

    302W

    Average weekly gross earnings excluding overtime for unitary authorities in Scotland

    £

    Edinburgh, City of

    Glasgow City

    South Lanarkshire

    Female:

    Non-manual

    136.5

    132.0

    —

    Manual

    —

    92.9

    —

    All

    121.4

    120.2

    113.1

    All employees:

    Non-manual

    136.7

    130.2

    —

    Manual

    91.8

    92.3

    —

    All

    122.4

    117.4

    111.4

    Pensioners (Tax Returns)
    Mr. Rapson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retirement pensioners completed a tax return in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what proportion they represent of total retirement pensioners. [150064]

    Dawn Primarolo
    It is estimated that about 1.3 million (around 12 per cent.) pensioners completed a tax return for 1998–99.

    Taxation
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he plans to be the national revenue from taxation in each of the next five years. [150119]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Forecasts of tax revenues were published in Tables B8 and B11 of the pre-Budget report. Updated forecasts will be published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

    Departmental Expenditure Limit
    Mr. Russell Brown
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any proposals to amend the Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for 2000–01. [151115]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be decreased by £411,000 from £2,230,571,000 to £2,230,160,000. The Inland Revenue Running Cost Limit will also be reduced by £2,911,000 from £2,373,579,000 to £2,370,668,000.

    The reduction in DEL and running cost limit reflect an inter-departmental transfer of £450,000 running costs provision to Customs and Excise to enable Customs to meet its main commitments from the Grabiner report into the hidden economy. This is partially offset by a £39,000 transfer from the Department of Social Development (Northern Ireland) for a bookkeeping service they provide in respect of the national insurance fund.

    In addition, there is a further reduction in Inland Revenue's Running Cost Limit of £2,500,000 in respect of an intra-departmental transfer to the Valuation Office agency, to deal with more appeals than anticipated arising from the 2000 revaluation and increased legal costs.

    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to Her Majesty's Treasury's Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limits for 2000–01. [151114]
    303W
    Dawn Primarolo
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI Vote 1 (HM Treasury) and class XVI Vote 2 (HM Treasury: UK Coinage), the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by£12,940,000 from £264,023,000 to £276,963,000.

    The increase for Class XVI Vote 1 (HM Treasury) is the net effect of the take up of running costs EYF (£3,400,000) to meet the additional costs of the Treasury's planned programme of work, and to cover the custody charges for holding collateral on debt management office's behalf generated as part of the investment of the Spectrum proceeds; provides for the transfer of provision from other current to running costs for payments under the framework agreement for Partnerships UK (£4,000,000); and an increase in running costs of £540,000 to draw down the moneys allocated from the civil service modernisation fund for the Royal Mint Trading Fund. The running costs limit for HM Treasury will accordingly be increased by £7,940,000 from £64,064,000 to £72,004,000.

    The increase for Class XVI Vote 2 (HM Treasury: UK Coinage) is the net effect of the take up of other current EYF (£9,000,000), to meet the increased demand for UK coins.

    The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

    Mrs. Lawrence
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any proposals to amend the Office for National Statistics Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for 2000–01. [151113]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 12 (Office for National Statistics), the DEL will increase by £5,000,000 from £135,166,000 to £140,166,000 and the Running Costs Limit will increase by £5,000,000 from £132,161,000 to £137,161,000.

    The changes in Vote 12 are the result of the take up of £5,000,000 of the end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Table 7 of the 1999–2000 Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (CM 4812) published on 18 July 2000.

    The overall increase is made up of increases in running costs provision in Section A of the Vote of £5,000,000; increases in running costs provision in Section B of £2,500,000 to reflect increased demand for certificate sales and surveys, which will be fully met by additional receipts of £2,500,000; and increases in anticipated EC receipts in Section C of £500,000.

    Mr. Ian Stewart
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Departmental Expenditure Limit or Running Costs Limit for 2000–01. [151112]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 4 (HM Customs and Excise: administration), the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £9,319,000 from £886,858,000 to £896,177,000 and the Running Costs Limit will be decreased by £9,219,000 from £860,957,000 to £851,738,000.
    304W
    The increase in DEL consists of:
    an additional £450,000 running costs transferred from joint provision held by the Inland Revenue to implement recommendations of the Grabiner report into the hidden economy;
    an additional £1,550,000 running costs from Customs' share of the civil service modernisation fund; and
    an additional £1,538,000 other current and £6,000,000 capital from the take up of part of the Department's entitlement to end-year flexibility.

    These increases are partly offset by:
    a decrease in running costs of £99,000 transferred to the Home Office for development funding for drug action teams.

    The Department is also proposing a number of other changes within its DEL, including increases in expenditure sub-heads which are entirely matched and offset by additional appropriations in aid, as well as virement of £11,000,000 from running costs and £3,000,000 from capital to cover increased legal and investigative expenditure.

    There are no changes to the overall levels of public expenditure as a result of this Supplementary Estimate.

    Brewing
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs in brewing there were in each region and nation of the United Kingdom for each year since 1995. [147009]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    [holding answer 24 January 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins dated 15 February 2001:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of people employed in brewing in each region of the UK since 1995 (147009).
    The Annual Employment Survey (AES) provides information on employment for 1995 to 1998 for each region and nation of Great Britain. The AES may be accessed from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

    Urban Migration
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the net migration from urban and suburban to rural areas of England and Wales in the past 10 years. [150359]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 15 February 2001:
    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about estimates of net migration from urban and suburban to rural areas of England and Wales over the last ten years. (150359)
    The Office of National Statistics produces quarterly estimates of migration using the movement of NHS doctor's between the former Family Health Service Authorities. They should not be regarded as an exact measure of migration particularly because there is variation in the delay between a person moving and registering with a new doctor.

    305W
    The attached table shows migration from metropolitan areas (including London) to shire county areas. Migration estimates are only available for the last ten years for these administrative areas.

    Movements1 between London and metropolitan districts and the Shire countries of England and Wales during the years 1989 to 1999

    Thousand

    Year

    From London and metropolitan districts to shire countries

    From shire countries to metropolitan districts and London

    Net migration from metropolitan districts and London to shire countries

    1989

    347.2

    277.5

    69.6

    1990

    296.2

    235.5

    60.6

    1991

    331.3

    254.7

    76.7

    1992

    337.8

    260.5

    77.3

    1993

    341.8

    257.7

    84.2

    1994

    354.1

    266.1

    88.0

    1995

    364.1

    282.0

    82.2

    1996

    372.9

    279.8

    93.1

    1997

    385.4

    282.7

    102.7

    1998

    376.0

    289.9

    86.1

    1999

    384.1

    285.0

    99.2

    1 Based on NHS patient re-registration

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics

  HEALTH

    Pharmacists (Reimbursement)
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions during each of the last three years pharmacists were denied prescription reimbursement by the NHS because they had submitted forms for prescription charge exemption that had been erroneously completed by patients; and what was the estimated cost of these erroneously completed forms to pharmacists in each of those years. [149063]

    June

    July

    August

    September

    Items on forms submitted as exempt without a declaration

    118,013

    107,911

    105,822

    104,025

    Items to which concession applied for patients under 16 or 60 and over

    37,965

    35,834

    36,583

    35,290

    Charges deducted from payments—line one less line two x £6.00 (£)

    480,288

    432,462

    415,436

    412,410

    Total items dispensed

    45,049,254

    42,314,572

    43,062,881

    42,518,754

    Percentage of items on forms submitted as exempt without a completed declaration—line one/line four

    0.26

    0.26

    0.25

    0.24

    If previous patterns of submitting forms without declarations of exemption were similar, then adjustments to payments would have been around £7 million in 1997–98, £7.4 million in 1998–99 and £7.8 million in 1999–2000.

    Older People (Services)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for the years(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 how the £1.4 billion announced in the NHS plan for services for older people will be allocated; how much will be available through (i) NHS bodies and (ii) personal social services; and of the sums allocated through social services how much is made up of specific grants and how much is SSA. [150030]
    306W
    Ms Stuart
    No pharmacy contractors have been denied reimbursement because they have submitted prescription forms which have been incorrectly completed by patients claiming exemption from charges.

    Pharmacists are required to collect a charge in respect of each chargeable item supplied unless a declaration of entitlement to exemption or remission is completed on the prescription form by or on behalf of the patient. This has been a requirement since 1968.

    Pharmacists are also required to sort forms into "exempt" and "non-exempt" groups before submitting them to the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) for payment. When a form is submitted as exempt from charges but without a completed declaration, it will be treated as non-exempt. Forms submitted as exempt but showing a charge are also treated as non-exempt. Forms submitted as non-exempt are treated as exempt if they bear a completed declaration. In each case these forms are processed according to the declaration, as required by law, rather than according to the group in which the pharmacist has submitted them.

    A temporary concession has been introduced for prescriptions dispensed from June 2000 onwards to encourage pharmacists and their staff to improve the completion rate. Under the concession, no adjustment is made in respect of forms for patients aged less than 16 or 60 or over on which the patient's age has been printed by the prescriber, even if the declaration required by law has not been completed. In conjunction with this, information is now routinely provided to pharmacists by the PPA about the number of forms which have been submitted as exempt but treated as non-exempt; which would have been treated as non-exempt but for the concession; or have been treated as exempt when submitted as non-exempt.

    Information about forms submitted as exempt without a completed declaration of exemption prior to June 2000 is not available. Information about exempt and non-exempt forms since then is in the table.

    Mr. Hutton
    [holdiag answer 12 February 2001]: As stated at paragraph 15.2 of the NHS plan, from 2004 we are making available annually an additional £1.4 billion for new investment in health and social services for older people. The disposition of the funding for services to elderly people, including intermediate care and related services, within the national health service and: the personal social services has been set out in two circulars, copies of which are available in the Library. They are:
    Health Service Circular (2001) 01/Local Authority Circular (2001) 01; and
    Local Authority Social Services Letter (2000) 13;

    together with a reply from my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to Lord Lipsey on 12 October 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA51.

    Organ Donation
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs were offered for donation for

    Organs offered for transplant and 'donor'1 in UK, February 2000-January 2001, by month

    Month

    Kidneys

    Livers

    Hearts

    Lungs

    Pancreatic

    Total solid organs

    Corneas

    Solid organ 'donors'1

    Cornea-only 'donors'1

    February 2000

    110

    49

    39

    70

    7

    275

    225

    57

    118

    March 2000

    163

    77

    61

    122

    15

    438

    323

    84

    149

    April 2000

    120

    65

    56

    104

    10

    355

    348

    69

    179

    May 2000

    116

    59

    48

    92

    17

    332

    347

    67

    181

    June 2000

    113

    63

    50

    82

    16

    324

    275

    66

    131

    July 2000

    111

    65

    53

    104

    16

    349

    306

    68

    143

    August 2000

    137

    69

    57

    108

    19

    390

    288

    77

    138

    September 2000

    85

    46

    42

    66

    8

    247

    276

    47

    141

    October 2000

    134

    69

    52

    100

    21

    376

    262

    75

    124

    November 2000

    128

    60

    49

    102

    20

    359

    243

    68

    113

    December 2000

    138

    67

    55

    106

    21

    387

    259

    72

    124

    January 2001

    136

    65

    56

    104

    18

    379

    278

    71

    136

    Total

    1,491

    754

    618

    1,160

    188

    4,211

    3,430

    821

    1,677

    1 'Donors' here means potential donors ie they did not necessarily end up donating.

    Note:

    These are counts of separate whole organs offered from cadaveric donors. Some were not accepted and some were offered in combination (double lungs, heart/lungs) and livers in some cases were subsequently split or reduced.

    Departmental Expenditure Limit
    Mr. Andy King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the Department of Health and Food Standards Agency Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for 2000–01. [151196]

    Mr. Milburn
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class II, Votes 1 and 2., the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class II, which includes the Department of Health and the Foods Standard Agency, will be increased by £196,888,000 from £45,090,755,000 to £45,287,643,000.

    Of this increase the Department of Health Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £196,888,000 from £44,997,888,000 to £45,194,776,000. The increase is the net effect of changes to Class II, Vote I (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) of £156,025,000 made up of £74,977,000 in respect of take up of end year flexibility, (£35,217,000) for capital and (£39,760,000) for family health services as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper Cm4812, published on 18 July 2000, and £82,214,000 Trust end year flexibility; transfers from Northern Ireland of £1,373,000 (£1,307,000) for Out of Area Treatments and (£66,000) for contributions to medical training costs of Royal Colleges; £144,000 from the Scottish Executive for contributions to medical training costs of Royal Colleges; £92,000 from the National Assembly for Wales for contributions to medical training costs of Royal Colleges and £88,000 from Class III, Vote 1. (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) for the Rough Sleepers Unit; partially offset by transfers of £512,000 to the National Assembly for Wales for Out of Area Treatments; £1,065,000 to Class XII, Vote 2 (Department of Social Security: administration) for operating costs of the Road Traffic Accident element of the Compensation
    308W
    each of the last 12 months for which information is available. [150100]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is in the table.

    Recovery Unit; £536,000 to Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services. England and Wales) (£221,000) for Drug Action Teams Development funding and (£315,000) for Drugs Action Teams Recruitment Initiative and £750,000 to Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) for the Institute of Psychiatry new research facilities.

    An increase of £1,352,000 for Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) is the net effect of transfers (detailed below) and the take-up of £4,000,000 (running costs) end year flexibility as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper Cm4812, published on 18 July 2000. Transfers of £1,106,000 from the Scottish Executive (£141,000 running costs) for reserved health bodies; £19,000 (running costs) from Northern Ireland for reserved health bodies; £459,000 from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) £130,000 (running costs) for the Youth Justice Board inspections and (£329,000) for drug grants and drug related initiatives; £200,000 from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for the teenage pregnancy campaign; offset by net transfers of £464,000 to Class X, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) (£1,118,000) for the BSE Inquiry, less (£654,000) for research into BSE; and £388,000 to Class 1, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) (£455,000) for the drug advisers project, less (£67,000) for Protection of Children's Act Tribunal costs; and transfers of £3,000,000 to Class V, Vote 1 (Lord Chancellor's Department) for start up costs for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services (CAFCASS) and £580,000 to Class III, Vote 1 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) for the Rough Sleepers budget.
    309W
    Within the departmental DEL there is also a net transfer of £308,000 from Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) to Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) of which £500,000 is reclassified as running costs following agreement by HM Treasury that Mental Health Review Tribunal clerk costs should no longer be classified as programme costs. There is no increase in Mental Health Review Tribunal costs as a result of this change.

    The Department of Health's gross Running Cost Limit will be increased by £4,790,000 from £302,490,000 to £307,280,000 as detailed above.

    The external finance limit for NHS trusts has decreased by £140,242,000 from £451,000,000 to £310,758,000 comprising of a reduction in voted trust loans of £173,853,000 partially offset by a take up of £33,611,000 (non-voted) from HM Treasury for Public Finance Initiative schemes.

    The external finance limit for the Medicines Control Agency has increased by £5,900,000 from £700,000 to £6,600,000 in respect of take up of end year flexibility entitlement as mentioned above.

    There are no changes to the Food Standards Agency element of the DEL.

    All increases will either be offset by transfers to or from other Departmental Expenditure Limits (detailed) or charges to the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

    Medical Negligence
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the expenditure on insurance against medical negligence claims by(a) North Bristol NHS trust and (b) all NHS hospital trusts in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [150566]

    Ms Stuart
    The clinical negligence scheme for trusts (CNST) commenced on 1 April 1995. This is not insurance, but rather a risk-pooling arrangement within the national health service administered by the NHS Litigation Authority. The size of an individual trust's contribution will depend on a number of factors including their claims history and excess level.

    North Bristol NHS trust's net contribution to the CNST for 2001–02 was £342,956 with an excess level of £50,000; and for 2000–01 was £382,369 with an excess level of £100,000. This trust formed as a result of a merger between Frenchay and Southmead NHS trusts in April 1999, and so no directly comparable information is available before that date.

    Figures for CNST contributions for all NHS trusts are available for each year back to 1995–96. Tables setting out this information will be placed in the Library in due course.

    As the CNST did not exist before April 1995, no comparable figures are available before that date.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a reply will be sent to the letters from the 310W
    hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford to his Department, dated 11 September 2000 and 26 October 2000. [150593]

    Ms Stuart
    A reply to the hon. Member was sent on 12 February.

    Consultants (North Cumbria)
    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for consultants, by specialty, in hospitals in the North Cumbria health authority area; and if he will make a statement. [150459]

    Mr. Hutton
    The national health service trusts within the North Cumbria health authority currently have 11 vacancies for consultants. The Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust has vacancies for consultants in oncology, orthodontics, anaesthetics, histopathology, clinical radiology and neurology. The North Lakeland healthcare NHS trust has a consultant vacancy in child and adolescent mental health services. The West Cumbria Health Care NHS trust has consultant vacancies in endocrinology, gastroenterology, paediatrics and breast surgery.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Departmental Expenditure Limit
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to amend the Departmental Expenditure Limits and Running Costs Limits for the Northern Ireland Office expenditure and the Northern Ireland Executive for 2000–01. [151005]

    Dr. Reid
    Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XV, Vote 1 the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–2001 will be increased by £16,667,000 from £1,121,564,000 to £1,138,231,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £12,147,000 from £264,861,000 to £277,008.000.

    The increase reflects is the take-up of end year flexibility of £20,407,000 (£9,340,000 running costs, £10,263,000 other current and £804,000 capital), an increase of £140,000 in respect of Housing Benefit for occupants of bail hostels, £215,000 from the civil service modernisation fund, £610,000 from the capital modernisation fund, net transfers of £4,702,000 to the Northern Ireland Executive and a transfer of £3,000 to the Home Office (Class (IV, Vote 1).

    The Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Northern Ireland Executive 2000–01 will be increased by £172,993,000 from £5,199,903,000 to £5,372,896,000. The increases reflect:

    The take up of end-year flexibility of £147,554,000;

    £166,000 allocated in the pre-Budget report for e-learning;

    Additional provision of £5,556,000 allocated in the pre-Budget report for Schools;

    £8,826,000 for support to the farming industry;

    £66,000 as part of the recently announced package to improve flood defences;

    £916,000 from the invest to save budget;

    £6,500,000 to enable a programme of welfare reform to be undertaken;

    311W

    net transfers of £4,702,000 from the NIO;

    transfer of £10,000 to DETR;

    transfer of £1,392,000 to the Department of Health;

    transfer of £99,000 from the Department of Social Security;

    transfer of £266,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry for the Pheonix fund;

    additional funding of £229,000 for the Pheonix fund;

    transfer of £39,000 to the Inland Revenue;

    transfers of £193,000 to MAFF;

    transfer of £252,000 to the Scottish Executive; and

    transfer of £1,000 to the National Assembly for Wales.

    The Northern Ireland Executive's welfare to work provision increases by £1,753,000 from £74,846,000 to £76,599,000.

    These increases will be offset by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

    Prisoner Releases
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of each terrorist organisation were released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998; and how many of those have subsequently been(a) arrested and charged with offences of a terrorist nature, (b) arrested for other criminal activity and (c) convicted of activity of the nature set out in (a) and (b). [150306]

    Mr. Ingram
    Information is held, for management purposes, in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners in Northern Ireland. The following table sets out details of the perceived association of the 434 individuals released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
    312W
    Details are held only in relation to those early release prisoners who come to the attention of the police while they are still under licence. At 14 February 2001, 18 of the 434 persons released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 were arrested and charged with further offences while under licence.

    Two early release prisoners were charged with offences of a terrorist nature and 16 were arrested for other criminal activity. Neither of the two cases in the former category have yet been dealt with by the courts. Of the other 16, eight were convicted, three had their charges withdrawn or were found not guilty and five have yet to have the charges against them resolved.

    Perceived association

    Number

    PIRA

    195

    INLA

    24

    Former INLA

    7

    Republican association

    3

    UDA

    87

    UFF

    14

    UVF

    67

    RHC

    3

    LVF

    16

    Loyalist association

    6

    Criminal or No association

    12

    Grand total

    434

    Hospital Violence
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the RUC have been called to the accident and emergency and casualty departments of each hospital in Northern Ireland in(a) each month in 2000 and (b) January 2001 to deal with incidents of violence by patients and their visitors towards hospital staff and damage to equipment. [150294]

    Mr. Ingram
    The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

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

Parliamentary Answers: Electronic System
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
When it will be possible for Lords who so wish to receive the Answers to written Questions electronically.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first raised the issue of electronic Answers to written Questions in 1997. I am not proud of what has happened—or rather, what has not happened—since then and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to the Library and Computers Sub-Committee and to the House. I gave answers in good faith that have not turned out to be true. I apologise for that.
Having said that, a test Question has been successfully transmitted from officials of your Lordships' House to officials of the Cabinet Office via the Government's secure intranet and a digitally signed Answer has been returned and the signature verified. We are currently conducting tests to ensure that the software used does not conflict with other software used in the Cabinet Office. Assuming `that any such conflict can be resolved, I hope to invite the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to address a Question to me in March, which I shall respond to by e-mail. We shall then commence the roll-out of the system to other departments. I should emphasise that the new electronic system will run in parallel with the existing paper-based procedure.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's apology. I exempt him from any blame, but it is extraordinary that it has taken the Government three and a half years to do what I and a parliamentary Clerk could have put together in an afternoon, with a couple of extra weeks to agree what we had done with our relevant computer departments. The issue is immensely simple. Can the Government confirm that all departments of state are committed to implementing the new procedure when it has been tested by the Cabinet Office?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot. That is a matter for departments. We shall write to them in the next few days to explain the procedures that will become available and we shall write to the Leader of the House and, for information, to the Leader of the House of Commons. How
332
Ministers choose to answer the parliamentary Questions that they are asked is a matter for them. It cannot be dictated.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I listened with admiration to the Minister's Answer. Will he confirm that the new procedure will not interfere with the Government's publication of Answers in Hansard, when appropriate, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, promised me in answer to my Question on Monday?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the contrary, my Lords, not only will the new procedure not interfere with the publication in Hansard, it should make that faster and more error-free because the same electronic text will be available to Hansard as to the noble Lord who asked the Question.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the very relevant Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has even wider implications? The technology now exists in your Lordships' House to install a broadband wireless connectivity that would permit noble Lords to have access to the Internet from any location in the House without the requirement for wires or cables. Does the Minister agree that that would make life much easier for many noble Lords and would help your Lordships' House to establish itself in the forefront of the information age?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter for the House authorities. I would applaud any measure they could take to establish the House in the forefront of the information age. A wireless network could encourage your Lordships to work in any convenient area of the building. We should examine the many steps taken by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales to use IT in support of their work.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given a full apology to the House for the delay in the answering of parliamentary Questions by e-mail. But will he explain what has led to that delay? It is extraordinarily simple to dispatch e-mails to Members of your Lordships' House. Indeed, it happens the whole time. If the issue is just security, the technology for authenticating signatures has been around for a long time. What hope is there for much more complex computer systems such as that used to process asylum seekers when the Government cannot work out how to send e-mails?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. There are reasons which, given hindsight, were avoidable. We gave the contract to a private firm that did not perform, changed its name, lost the people who knew about the project and eventually carried out only an early part of the work. That wasted far too much time.
It is not true that encryption and digital signatures have been readily available for as long as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, suggests. The most likely

333
system was released for export from the United States only in December 1999. I shall gladly talk to the noble Viscount in private about some of the other complications, but I think it would bore the House were I to go on about them.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, how soon will it be possible for Questions to be sent electronically to the printers so that they can eliminate typographical errors? If departments are not going to go on to the system for a while, there will be a problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the plan that the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has drawn up, which I think has been discussed with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, runs from now until the end of March. The supply of the electronic text to Hansard can take place at the same time. Indeed, in the early stages, that will produce the most significant benefit because we do not yet know how many noble Lords will wish to receive their Answers to Written Questions electronically.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the e-commerce envoy and his 60 or so employees to think "House of Lords" when developing e-government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. We have been in close contact with the office of the e-envoy about that matter and its staff have been very supportive, particularly over the past few days. They are certainly aware of the needs of the House of Lords.

Disposable Surgical Instruments
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What delays there now are in carrying out operations because hospitals are waiting for the disposable surgical instruments required to avoid the risks associated with variant CJD.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, on 4th January the Government announced the introduction of single-use instruments for tonsil surgery during 2001. Supplies of those instruments are expected to come on-stream during the late spring and summer. In the meantime, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer has advised that surgeons should review individual cases to ensure that no serious conditions are missed. Guidance has also been issued to the NHS to ensure that, so far as possible, other ear, nose and throat procedures are substituted for cancelled tonsil operations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Have hospitals in England and Wales yet caught up with their
334
programmes of non-urgent operations following the delays arising from the instruction that only disposable instruments should be used? Are sufficient disposable instruments now available to meet all the hospitals' requirements?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, approximately 74,000 operations are carried out in the UK each year. So far as concerns the question of supply, an initial order has been placed for 3,000 sets of instruments, which will be delivered in February and March. The remainder of the available instruments will be delivered over the next few months. There will be a delay for some patients who are waiting for a tonsil operation. However, I believe that, under the precautionary principle, that outcome is probably inevitable. With regard to waiting lists, I can confirm that the number of patients on those lists is currently 124,000 below the number that we inherited.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister's recent announcement referred to tonsillectomies and instruments used in those operations. However, the acting chairman of SEAC was recently quoted as saying:
"If there is a risk of transmission of vCJD through tonsillectomy instruments, I think it is likely that there is risk through other surgical procedures—particularly those involving the brain and central nervous system".
Can the Minister say whether the Government's recent risk assessment report, which is still unpublished, confirms that view, and what are the Government's plans in that respect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the risk assessment report will be published soon. Noble Lords will be glad to know that it will also be available on the Department of Health's website. The noble Lord is right to say that at its meeting last November SEAC welcomed the overall risk reduction strategy. Indeed, it also welcomed the advances that are being made with regard to decontamination, which plays an important part in the way in which we deal with these issues. It endorsed the concept of using tonsils in a pilot scheme to see how single instrument use would work in practice. However, the noble Lord is right. There are other procedures, particularly in relation to brain and posterior eye surgery, where single instrument use may need to be considered. We are committed to working with and talking to the profession about the practicalities of that.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any evidence which shows that disposable instruments are better than or preferable to instruments which are properly cleaned and denuded of all protein during the cleaning process before sterilisation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the risk assessment programme carried out by SEAC certainly made the point that the first line of attack must be to ensure that proper decontamination processes are in place. The issue of single instrument use must be considered as a second line of attack. It is important

335
that hospital decontamination procedures are right. That is why the Government have authorised expenditure of £200 million over two years and why we are putting into place a strong performance management approach to decontamination. That is where we need to focus many of our efforts.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister able to confirm the figures published in a paper which says that civil servants have calculated the cost of introducing disposable instruments at £630 million a year? If abdominal surgery were to be included, that figure would reach over £2 billion£that is, 4 per cent of the national health budget. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is particularly important to move ahead with the halted programme of research into whether instruments can transfer infection? Will he confirm that £30 million has been set aside by the Government for that research, which was agreed two years ago but then halted? When will that programme of research start?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with regard to the research programme, we are funding a portfolio of research projects in relation to the decontamination of surgical instruments. That funding totals more than £3 million. The programme is being overseen by a Department of Health steering group. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that the research is developed as speedily as possible. So far as concerns the overall costs suggested by the noble Baroness, the cost of single-use instruments for tonsils is estimated at £25 million per year. If we were to consider back-of-the-eye procedures, the cost would be between approximately £450 million and £500 million.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that CJD is particularly difficult to deal with because it is a prion, which makes it impossible to disinfect surgical instruments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes. SEAC concluded that tonsillectomies should be chosen for specific attention because prions have been found in the tonsil tissue of people who died of variant CJD. Moreover, most tonsil surgery is carried out on children, who have their lives ahead of them. It was on the basis of the SEAC risk assessment that the decision was made to phase in single-use instruments in relation to tonsils.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister's answer seems to indicate that instruments are not being properly cleaned or sterilised in some hospitals, which could lead to the passing on of diseases other than CJD. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all surgical instruments are properly cleaned and sterilised?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right—concerns have been expressed about the standards of decontamination procedures in
336
our hospitals. That is why the Government announced a £200 million programme to modernise decontamination and sterilisation procedures. We have issued a circular to the NHS emphasising the importance of its urgently reviewing its management arrangements and the need to carry out a health and safety audit. We have appointed a high-level support team to go into individual trusts to help them to get right their decontamination procedures. We want new training programmes to be established to reinforce those points. We take this matter very seriously.

Prison Sentences
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recent lecture by the Lord Chief Justice to the Prison Reform Trust on ways to reduce the number of people sent to prison.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Lord Chief Justice put the case for reduced reliance on short-term prison sentences and for increased use of community penalties. The Government believe that, although many offenders can be effectively punished in the community, prison is the right response for serious and dangerous offenders. In the case of persistent offenders, short-term prison sentences may be appropriate where community sentences have been shown to be ineffective.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, although I thank the Minister for that Answer, does he appreciate that that is an inadequate way to deal with a lecture by this country's foremost criminal judge, who has particular knowledge of prison conditions following his Strangeways inquiry 10 years ago? Is the Minister inviting a considered and careful response from the Home Secretary? Is it not important to do so from the public's point of view? The Minister will know from yesterday's Question Time of the bad conditions in prisons. They are caused by too many prisoners being sent to prison and by the fact that accommodation is not available. Everyone is adversely affected, including prison staff and prisoners. The whole outlook of this country is gradually being changed by the constant demand in the media for longer prison sentences. What is the Government's response to that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Lord Chief Justice, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We obviously believe that prisons are an appropriate place to send those who are sentenced when the offences are serious and persistent and, in particular, when violent or sexual offences are involved. That is how we use prisons; our policies are clear and firm.
On the noble Lord's general comments on prisons, of course there are bad examples of bad prisons. In the main, however, we are confident that the Prison

337
Service is doing a first-rate job, and it should be supported in that regard. For every negative report on prisons and the Prison Service, there are many positive reports.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble and learned Lord said in his lecture:
"There should be a Board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to that of the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population"?
Does my noble friend agree that that is a very important proposal? What action will the Government take in that regard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that thoughtful question. The Lord Chief Justice's suggestion is very helpful and it reflects well on the work of the Youth Justice Board. We shall obviously consider the matter in the most positive light and give it very careful consideration.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, do the Government accept that the single most corrosive element in the Prison Service is that of overcrowding? That means that the programmes that are designed to reduce the reconviction rate and to prevent re-offending are neglected. Secondly, do the Government agree with the observation that was made by the Lord Chief Justice towards the end of his lecture? He said:
"What would have a greater effect on overcrowding than anything that I can propose would be an announcement by the Government that it fully accepts the damaging effects of prison overcrowding and that it attaches highest priority to eliminating this problem".
Are the Government prepared to follow the Lord Chief Justice in that regard and make such an announcement?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly agree that overcrowding is undesirable. The Government's policy is directed towards reducing it as much as possible. The situation that persisted in the early 1990s, in which many prisoners occupied cells that contained three prisoners, no longer obtains. We no longer have trebling but, sadly, we do have doubling. I inform your Lordships' House that, as of November last year, some 10,000 prisoners were held two to a cell in cells that were designed for one. We have brought the figures down, and our building programme is designed to tackle overcrowding. We no longer have the 30 per cent overcrowding that persisted in 1990–91. Investment in the Prison Service and in expanding the prison estate has begun to tackle that problem. Overcrowding is a government priority, and we are determined to tackle the problem.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not clearly obvious that the pressure on prison space is inexorably increasing because of the volume of crime in society? Is it not becoming glaringly obvious that the way to stop that is to get to people before they become criminals and avoid spending all of the money on those people after they have become criminals? Are not the Government in the position of someone who is so busy baling that he does not have time to stop the hole in the boat?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is being somewhat simplistic in his response to a very complex problem. The Government have a policy of being tough on crime—we have made that plain from the outset and we have been tough on crime. We are putting more resources in place to ensure that criminals are detected. We are of course investing in education, for example, to ensure that people do not slip into a world of criminal activity because they do not have the training, education or resources to make a better life for themselves. We are dealing with all of those problems all the way through. We should be a poor government if we were to neglect—I am afraid to say that previous governments have done so—investment in the prison estate to make the best possible use of that estate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is much confusion among the public as a result of the comments of the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Secretary? Is there not a strong case for a further discussion between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice without delay? It is no good for my noble friend to state that he regards the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Secretary with respect. There is a great deal of confusion among the public, including the informed public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would not be right for us to hold back on an important debate on the use of prisons, the future of the Prison Service and the way in which the prison estate should develop. There are good relations between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. They have the friendliest of exchanges on such matters. It is important, and in society's best interests, that we have a wide-ranging debate about the use of prisons and the future of prisons. It would be a sad day indeed if we hid away from that debate. Too often in the past, prisons have been unthought of and uncared for. We need to think more about what we are doing with prisons.

Asylum Seekers Arriving from France
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response President Chirac made at the summit meeting with the Prime Minister to the Government's reported intention to send asylum seekers arriving from France back to France.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a full discussion at the summit on asylum and illegal immigration with his opposite number, Lionel Jospin. They agreed that a solution to the responsibility for considering asylum claims could best be found at EU level. The United Kingdom and France have worked closely to achieve that. Detailed discussions on those topics were also held between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the French Minister of the Interior, M Vaillant. They reached agreement on the introduction in June of juxtaposed controls on Eurostar services, whatever the destination of the passenger, and on further co-operative action to combat drugs and people-smuggling from the Balkans.
In reporting the outcome of the summit, President Chirac concluded that positive outcomes had been reached to further enhance UK/French co-operation on asylum and immigration issues. Current arrangements for returning asylum seekers to France and other EU countries are made under the Dublin convention agreed by the previous administration in 1990. The previous administration also agreed that the existing more effective gentleman's agreement between the UK and France should be terminated for the return of asylum seekers.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether illegal asylum seekers, when returned from this country to France, simply remain in, for instance, Calais, where they can have another go, or does France return them to their country of origin? I am not at all sure that the Minister has explained the policy of France as regards asylum seekers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, what happens to illegal immigrants when they return to France is a matter for the French authorities. We are trying to establish and develop clear and effective communications with our French colleagues to ensure that such problems are dealt with between our two countries on a bilateral basis, and across the EU as a whole. It is only by having effective EU relations on such matters that we can tackle the problem together in the most effective and co-operative way.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the "mighty Baroness Trumpington" for raising this matter and allowing me to comment on it. I do so seriously, as the grandson of four people who today would be regarded as asylum seekers. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend and the Government to deal with asylum seekers with fairness, and with strictness in appropriate cases, but also with compassion, decency and respect.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that I always deal with such matters with compassion,
340
decency and integrity. Perhaps I may add that yesterday's debate on asylum seekers was a credit to your Lordships' House because it was conducted in exactly those terms. I wish that debates could be conducted in such terms more frequently.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, during yesterday's debate, the Minister boasted about the Government investing to create a modern and efficient system to handle immigration cases. A few hours later we read in the newspapers that they have just stopped the investment altogether. Did not the Minister know about that or did something else happen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that I am not a boastful Minister in your Lordships' House. Yes, I am aware of the problem to which the noble Lord alludes. It should be put on record that the computer system in Croydon, to which I believe the noble Lord refers, has helped us to achieve a great deal. It was a major contributory factor to over 110,000 asylum decisions being made last year. The system may have shortcomings, but it has demonstrated considerable flexibility. That was how it was originally designed to be and what was intended when the contract was set, back in 1996.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Is my noble friend aware of the proposal to fine UK rail freight operators, rather than SNCF, for importing illegal immigrants when preventive measures are unable to be taken in France, and that that will probably cause the rail freight services through the tunnel to close? Is not that contradictory to the policy of the DETR; that is, to encourage, through the SRA, the promotion of cross-channel rail services?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for declaring his interest in the matter. It is important that we encourage the transportation of goods by rail. I cannot believe that measures which we have put in place, and which are designed to be effective in tackling the problem of illegal immigrants, will act as a disincentive to rail freight. As regards the longer-term nature of enforcement, if the noble Lord and the interests that he represents continue to have concerns, I shall be ready to facilitate any meetings necessary to deal with some of the problems.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc.)Order 2001
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order exempts political parties in Northern Ireland from registering the source of their donations and from the specified list of permissible donors contained in the Act. The exemption will last for four years. It can, of course, be revoked earlier if it is no longer required. If it is thought to be needed after four years the Government may seek further exemptions from the House.
I know that this section of the Act was debated at length in your Lordships' House and in another place. The Government are well aware of the continued concerns about the principle of the order and I hope to explain to your Lordships today why we believe it is necessary. The order is based on certain recommendations produced in the 5th Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Shore of Stepney, also served on that committee. All three spoke in the Second Reading debate in your Lordships House. They did not draft this order, but it is based on the best possible interpretations of the two specific recommendations in respect of Northern Ireland.
Following evidence given to the committee when it visited Belfast, the first of those recommendations acknowledged that there were real possibilities of intimidation of those who made donations to political parties there. As a consequence, the Neill Report suggested that a short term and reviewable exemption from the reporting requirements in respect of donations should be made for political parties in Northern Ireland.
The second recommendation acknowledged the importance of the Good Friday agreement and our relations with the Republic of Ireland. This prompted the committee to suggest that a definition of a permissible source should include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland in residence in the Republic, subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Law Act 1997.
The Government accepted that recommendation, as they had accepted the first. Unfortunately, as the House is now aware, it did not prove possible to draft the clause in respect of the Republic of Ireland in quite the way suggested. This is because the Electoral Commission, as a UK-based organisation, would not be able to verify whether those in the Republic of Ireland who make donations are in fact in compliance with the laws of that country.
Your Lordships will know that it was not the intention of the clause to permit overseas donations for the Northern Ireland parties. Nor was it the intention that this clause should benefit one particular section of Northern Ireland life or one particular party.
The need for anonymity has been acknowledged by most of the parties in Northern Ireland. Even those which would prefer to see a list of donors' names being given, in confidence, to the commission recognised that the very existence of such a list might constitute a threat for some people.
It is an unfortunate consequence of the second recommendation, which suggested that donations should be permitted from the Republic of Ireland, that we cannot, in reality, police the source of that money and ascertain without doubt that it did not come from some other international source.
I would, however, stress to your Lordships that the other parts of this Act do extend to the Northern Ireland parties. That means that all the Northern Ireland parties must register with the Electoral Commission; that they will have a duty to keep full and detailed accounting records as directed by the commission; and that their campaign and other expenditure will be controlled.
These exemptions are being put before your Lordships' House because of very genuine fears for the safety of those who are named as donors. Equally, we all recognise the role of the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland's political life. This is entirely consistent with the Good Friday agreement.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, George Howarth, has had two rounds of consultations with the Northern Ireland parties about these exemptions. While a number of concerns were expressed by the parties, there was an acknowledgement of the possibility of intimidation and the impossibility of policing donations which came from another country.
As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State mentioned in a debate in another place, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have already given some indication that they are considering introducing legislation similar to that contained in this Act. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on or to prejudge the matter, but as my honourable friend in another place acknowledged, if there is a change in the law in the Republic of Ireland it may well have implications for these exemptions.
I can confirm to your Lordships that the Government would be happy to review the need for these exemptions or for any particular part of them if they were able to do so in the light of any changes in the law of the Republic of Ireland. They would also consider revocation or amendment if there were any material change of circumstance.
The order has a life span of four years. If it can be revoked before that time, the Government will be happy to do so. Alternatively, if after four years we

343
believe that the situation calls for a renewal of the exemptions we will come again to the House with an affirmative order.
In the meantime, I suggest that while these exemptions have a regrettable side they are in the short-term very necessary if the democratic parties in Northern Ireland are to prosper and thrive. I therefore ask your Lordships approve the order today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but that this House regrets that the draft order allows political parties in Northern Ireland to receive funds from foreign donors; dispenses with the requirement for political parties in Northern Ireland to keep records of donations and to report them to the Electoral Commission; and allows foreign funding to be used by Northern Ireland political parties when participating in future United Kingdom referendums and in any future referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the terms of the amendment make clear the three aspects of the order about which we have reservations. The first is that it allows Northern Ireland parties to accept foreign donations not only from the Republic of Ireland but also from elsewhere in the world. As the noble and learned Lord acknowledged, that is against the spirit of the legislation and the recommendations of the Neill committee.
Secondly, the order means that no records will be kept of donations which can allow foreign donations to be understood. The third aspect concerns the effect on referendums, to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer.
As regards overseas funding, all parties in the United Kingdom agreed with the Neill committee on the proposed ending of foreign donations to our political parties. The Conservative Party implemented that measure before it was recommended by the Neill committee and continues to support it.
However, there has been wide recognition of the special position of Northern Ireland parties. The noble and learned Lord said that the changes that will be implemented by the order are based on the recommendations of the Neill committee, but they go much further. The Neill committee recommended that Northern Ireland parties should continue to be able to receive donations from the Republic of Ireland. That is discriminatory in favour of those parties whose views are likely to be more acceptable in the Republic of Ireland. In any event, the order goes further in allowing donations from anywhere in the world.
The noble and learned Lord again said that the problem is that the measure cannot be policed. He indicated that because of the difficulty in investigating matters in the Republic of Ireland to the satisfaction of
344
the commission, we cannot police "without doubt" that donations do not come from outside the Republic of Ireland. That is not a strong reason for saying that we cannot do so at all; that we cannot state that it is illegal to receive donations from outside the Republic, even though the exemption cannot be policed satisfactorily all the time. We understand that in some cases there might be an element of doubt—that it cannot be "without doubt"—but that is not a strong enough reason for taking no steps at all.
We all know that for many years donations have been collected in the United States ostensibly for humanitarian or political reasons but have then been diverted to terrorist purposes. Therefore, in the Northern Ireland context, it is especially dangerous to allow the fig leaf of political donations to continue because the money can flow into terrorist hands. Although the United States is often mentioned in this context, terrorists have received support of all kinds from countries such as Libya. Such support is not confined to the United States.
I have for a long time believed that the extraordinary momentum behind Irish terrorism is not connected only with politics but to some extent with finance. We know that that was the case with, for instance, the Mafia, which began as a political organisation and then turned to rackets. They are now primarily financial organisations. In my opinion, that has happened to some extent to Northern Ireland terrorism. That is why, when I was a Minister in the Province, I did as much as I could to fight the rackets that were taking place. Sadly, neither I nor others in both governments have been very successful and those rackets remain a series of problems. But there is a danger that money will come to Northern Ireland from overseas to parties that are connected with terrorists. Similarly, we do not want money from rackets to go into politics, but that is more difficult to control particularly if there is no reporting of donations.
That brings me to my second point: reporting. Obviously, I recognise the problem. To play any part in Northern Ireland politics can be very dangerous. Those of us who were in another place for some years will remember our colleague the Rev Robert Bradford and the numerous attacks on others over the years. We sympathise with the need for restrictions on publicity, but that should not rule out reporting in confidence to the Electoral Commission. I believe that it shows lack of confidence in the commission and the way that it conducts itself to suggest otherwise. We entirely sympathise with restrictions on publication, but that is quite different from sympathising with what the order does in this respect; namely, to eliminate all requirements for records of donations.
My third point concerns referendums which are of particular importance within Northern Ireland but also have repercussions in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first general point is whether foreign money should be spent in referendums. Obviously, we agree that it should not be spent in support of one side or another in future referendums, but that is not what the order achieves; indeed, it opens up loopholes. The order also confers on registered political parties in Northern Ireland benefits over other groups, because

345
a cross-community group that may be set up to campaign in a referendum but is not registered as a political party—it should not need to be—will suffer all the restrictions in the Bill which have been criticised and accepted as far as concerns Northern Ireland. Therefore, the order is defective in not allowing some people the freedom that others will have in a Northern Ireland referendum. In that context one is always conscious of the fact that, as on a number of occasions in the past, there may be referendums on the future government of Northern Ireland and so on.
During the debates on the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, conceded the point and said:
"I do not pretend that the position is ideal".—[Official Report, 21/11/00; col. 768.]
That is "Bassamspeak" for saying that it is not very good but the Government do not intend to do anything about it. That is what has happened. The order means that the position has not been corrected.
The other aspect of the matter is the loophole that the order creates for UK-wide referendums. There has been recent discussion on the timing of a possible referendum on the euro should the Labour Party, unfortunately, be re-elected, but I do not want to become involved in that this afternoon. It will be possible for money from all over the world to come via existing or new Northern Ireland parties to fund campaigns for a UK-wide referendum on one side or another of the question in the referendum. All of that seems to us to be potentially deeply unfair to one side or other in the referendum. It is not a loophole which respectable parties like those represented in this House would follow, but we all know that there are less reputable—or more disreputable—people who are capable of using loopholes which are created. This order creates a loophole which allows foreign money to flow into one or other, or both, sides of any UK as well as Northern Ireland referendum.
For those three reasons we do not regard the order and the policies which it represents to be satisfactory. We did not at the time when the Act was as a Bill, and we do not today. I beg to move.
Moved, That, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but that this House regrets that the draft order allows political parties in Northern Ireland to receive funds from foreign donors; dispenses with the requirement for political parties in Northern Ireland to keep records of donations and to report them to the Electoral Commission; and allows foreign funding to be used by Northern Ireland political parties when participating in future United Kingdom referendums and in any future referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland".—(Lord Cope of Berkeley.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, during the course of the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill through your Lordships' House it became clear that one of its main purposes, as we knew it would be, was to impose a general rule that no one from abroad should contribute to political parties in
346
the United Kingdom. I shall not comment on the general effects of the legislation, except to say that this order appears to be yet another example of what that Act will do to the political culture in this country by institutionalising and bureaucratising political parties and effectively rigging the system in favour of Whitehall and whatever government happen to be in power at the time.
As I understand it, two main exceptions to that general rule were imposed by the Government. The first was that companies with headquarters in other European Union countries could contribute to British political parties. I understand that the exception to that rule lay, above all, in EU law and regulation. If I correctly understood my then noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, he pointed out that the first exception—the second is the subject of this order today—made the general rule meaningless, since anyone could establish a company in, say, Amsterdam or anywhere else in the European Union, and pour money into it which could then be disbursed to the coffers of United Kingdom parties unhindered. If my then noble friend was right, he demonstrated clearly that that made a nonsense of the whole thing. On the other hand, if he was wrong, clearly it would also enable European Union nationals, or corporate nationals, to influence our internal politics in a way that no other foreign nationals could.
The second exception is the subject of this order. Quite apart from anything else, that exception is as objectionable as the first, partly on the same grounds. It gives non-United Kingdom entities, but also individuals, an opportunity to influence the politics of a part of the United Kingdom. But what makes the second exception infinitely worse than the first is that basically it licenses terrorist organisations to finance their terrorist political fronts in Northern Ireland at a particularly delicate time when it is clear that the process of peace, for which the Province in particular but also the rest of the United Kingdom are so grateful, teeters on a knife-edge. Not only does it license such donations from abroad, particularly to terrorist organisations and parties which are their political front, but it does so by providing that such donations should be kept secret. We went through that issue at various stages during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with my arguments again. I merely observe that, as your Lordships well know, terrorism flourishes on secrecy and fear. Secrecy and fear go together. I am sorry to have to say this to the noble and learned Lord, but it is a pity that the Government are proposing a measure which does an enormous amount to encourage that plight.
By way of mitigation and in anticipation that this point would be made not only by my noble friend Lord Cope but also by others during the course of our discussions today, the noble and learned Lord said that parties should keep accounts and that those accounts would be subject to audit. I am sure that they will. If the noble and learned Lord believes—to take

347
one example—that Sinn Fein or the Protestant parties affiliated to Protestant terrorist organisations are so lacking in ruthlessness or, indeed, in guile, that they are not able to hide those donations from the attentions of auditors for fear that those donations and their sources might not make them look very good in public, then I am afraid he is more naive than the House has understood him to be during the course of his distinguished tenure of a seat on that Front Bench.
For that reason alone we would be very foolish not to look carefully at every aspect of the order before we go any further and approve it.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to comment on this next point, because, if it is not true, it needs denying. I understand that there is a rumour current in Northern Ireland and that that rumour has actually been articulated by government Ministers in trying to persuade people in the Province to accept the need for this provision. The rumour is that the main beneficial effect of the order will not be to support Sinn Fein, but will be to provide a much needed source of funds for the moribund SDLP, which could not expect to find any support from elsewhere. I hope the Government realise that that is disingenuous—to put it mildly—if that is indeed being said.
Your Lordships will be well aware that one of the tragedies of the politics of the Province in the past few years, and particularly in the past few months, has been the decline in the political support enjoyed by the parties of the centre—basically the SDLP and the official Ulster Unionist Party. We all know that the present Government's policy, and particularly the previous government's policy, has been designed, above all, to help to support the moderate centre on both sides of the sectarian divide. I fear that what has happened is that the policy has had exactly the opposite effect. Instead of supporting the moderate parties of the centre, the effect has been to weaken them. If your Lordships doubt what I say, I have to remind you only of the results of the recent South Antrim by-election.
Therefore, this policy has achieved diametrically the opposite effect of what it was designed to achieve. The way that it has been implemented has pandered to the extremes on both sides, thereby weakening the centre, because no one is really prepared to go to the stake for it. The terrorists and their representatives are therefore enormously strengthened.
So what we are seeing in the Province now is the progressive destruction of the SDLP and the united Ulster Unionists. I am afraid that that destruction has been the direct result of policies pursued by governments of both complexions. If this order is designed to give a financial lifeline to the SDLP, I fear that that will not work. The SDLP can be revived only by a robust defence of the ballot box against the Armalite, and an understanding that the British Government will always go to the stake for that principle, rather than honour it more in the breach than the observance.
Whether or not the rumour that I described in the latter part of my remarks is true, this policy will continue a process that gives comfort to the terrorist
348
and gives official protection to the darkness in which terrorism flourishes. On those grounds alone noble Lords should oppose the order.
4 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise early in the debate to support the amendment. I rise early to give my opinion to this House of what I really believe is happening in Northern Ireland in advance of any member of the Unionist party speaking, so that it will not be reported in newspapers in Ireland tomorrow morning that I was speaking in support of what the unionists may contribute.
I have just returned from Belfast. I was there over a week ago. I spoke to many people about the order and its implications. I can only say with great honesty and certainty that the order does not have the support of democrats in Northern Ireland. If we are ever to reinstate democracy in Northern Ireland, it will not be done by making further concessions to anti-democrats. That is exactly what the order is doing.
Let us analyse the issue in language that we will all understand. It is about political parties. Political parties exist because they want to get candidates elected to whatever the political forum may be. In this case it is to the House of Commons, to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to Europe. The parties say that they need financial support to have their candidates elected. All the political parties say that. I can say this afternoon which candidates are likely to be returned to the parliamentary seats in the forthcoming election. One can say with a great deal of accuracy who those candidates may be and which parties they may represent. There may be one or two seats in question that one cannot predict. Yet I would not be very far off if I were to make a prediction as I stand here today.
The political parties in Northern Ireland are not, as they say in Northern Ireland, "exactly on their uppers". I fought 22 elections in Northern Ireland. In all the elections that I fought I had to go outside and get my own financial backing to fight them. It did not take thousands and thousands of pounds to win seats in Northern Ireland. At the moment, one of the main political parties in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein. It is reputed to be the richest political party in Europe because of the donations which it receives—for which it sometimes intimidates.
The candidates who will be fighting the next European election and the Assembly elections are already well known because many of them are "two-jobbing". Many of the SDLP candidates who will be defending their seats in the forthcoming election to this country's Parliament are already there, and in the Assembly. The UUP candidates will be defending their seats, and they are already sitting in the Assembly also. They are in receipt of a ministerial salary and a salary from this Parliament. The candidates who will be fighting the next election are already in receipt of over £100,000 a year. One might think that with that sort of income they might be able to make provision for a rainy day, and they might be able to save something to finance the forthcoming elections. It is not the case

349
that the political parties are in such a penurious state that they have to obtain money from either the Republic, Socialist International or America.
Sinn Fein will not abide by any restrictions placed on it by the withdrawal of this legislation. Sinn Fein will get its money wherever it gets its money. There have been many involuntary donations to the Sinn Fein election kitty over the past 30 years, mostly from banks and post offices in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein will get its money and nothing will stop that.
The SDLP has an annual collection hosted by the political parties in the Republic of Ireland. I think that I attended two of them during my term as leader of the SDLP. It was well known who were the personnel making these donations to the SDLP, and no one killed them. We are now being told that we have to introduce exclusion to prevent subscribers to political parties in Northern Ireland being murdered. What a convenient way this is for all the political parties in Northern Ireland to hide their finances.
I am not sure where the Official Unionist Party obtains its finances. I have no doubt it receives some subscriptions from Orange Lodges in Canada and elsewhere. The SDLP receives subscriptions from political parties in the Republic and from Socialist International. How Socialist International can recognise the SDLP as being a socialist party is far beyond me. Paddy Devlin and myself were responsible for having the SDLP admitted into Socialist International. That was a big undertaking. Since Paddy Devlin died and I left the SDLP, there are very little remnants of socialism left in that party.
The DUP has Ministers in the Executive in Northern Ireland and it has seats over here. Many of those politicians are in receipt of two salaries, one from the Assembly and one from here, and one of them has a ministerial salary. They are in receipt of over £100,000 a year. If they cannot finance their own election, what are they going to do with this money? Dr Paisley's party has three seats—one each at the Assembly, Westminster and Europe. We all read in our newspapers about the fiddles that go on with expenses in Europe. Dr Paisley should have enough to finance his candidates in the forthcoming elections—not forgetting the bucket collection he has every Sunday in the Martyrs Memorial church. There is no shortage of money.
Some people say that they are frightened that people who would make donations to the Women's Coalition are in danger of being intimidated or killed. Who would kill anyone making donations to the Women's Coalition Party in Northern Ireland? Who will carry out these assasinations and intimidations? Will it be the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and all the other IRAs which assasinate persons making contributions to the Unionist parties? Will it be the UVF or the UDA which will kill persons making donations to the SDLP? The whole thing is ridiculous. It reminds me of some people from this House and some from another place who have spent time in Northern Ireland. Some of those people have spent lunchtime there and they believe that that entitles them to bodyguards and free
350
transport for the rest of their lives. I do not believe that any political party will cease to exist if people refrain from making donations because they are in danger of being killed.
The reason for the exclusion of Northern Ireland does not bear scrutiny. Any political party can say that people who give it money are in danger of being killed. It is a very convenient way of hiding financial support.
The money from America may not be an issue at the moment; but it is liable to be an issue in the future. The money that has come to Sinn Fein and the SDLP—mostly from Democratic sources—may be called into question. The Bush Administration are intent on discrediting ex-President Clinton and some of the financial upheavals that took place then. Some of that money was going to Sinn Fein, and from Sinn Fein to the IRA. We may not have heard the last of that matter.
The Minister said that the order will be looked at again in four years. In Northern Ireland we know that there is nothing more permanent than that which is temporary. We have seen border polls and we were told that they were going to be brought back. We have seen the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. The emergency provisions were supposed to last for two or three weeks. Here we are now, 20 years later.
If the order is passed as it stands, it will be seen as a total surrender to those who would deny democracy and threaten those who are trying to bring about democracy in Northern Ireland.
I heard what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Representations are being made far and wide—particularly to me as a founder member of the SDLP—not to do anything that may prevent the SDLP receiving financial support from abroad. If I had a violin, I would play it. There are only 17 seats in Northern Ireland. There is enough slush-fund money coming from America to finance all of those seats. This order violates the democratic principle of elections as it applies to the United Kingdom. I do not think that it is necessary. I do not think that anyone will be intimidated, assasinated or harassed by making a donation to any of the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Saying that is a total exaggeration of the situation. Many people have used the emergency situation in Northern Ireland to make their lifestyles very comfortable. To whoever spent lunchtime in Northern Ireland and now has transport for the rest of his life, I repeat that what is proposed is a total and absolute waste of taxpayers' money, which should not be misused to such an extent.
I support the amendment. I do so because I believe that it is unnecessary to exclude Northern Ireland from all the provisions of the Act that apply to other parts of the United Kingdom.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is perfectly plain from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that, on the merits, there is no justification for the order. Putting it very briefly, if one or two seats—that

351
is all—are in question, this is really nothing more than to legitimise a channel for foreign funds to reach Sinn Fein for the purposes to which we know they are put.
I shall say no more about the merits but look at the powers. The order is produced under Section 70(1)(b) of the Act, which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision … for disapplying"—
that is the word—
"any specified provisions of this Part, for such period as is specified, in relation to a Northern Ireland party".
This is not strictly a disapplication. What it does is to remove something contrary to the general intendment of the provisions of the Act, which is designed to control foreign donors. I am far from certain what the High Court would say about the legality of this proposal. I am not sure whether it is within the vires conferred by the Act. That is apart from the merits, of which there are none.
Baroness Blood: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the order. I shall comment in a moment on what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Fitt, but I want first to register an interest. I am one of the founder members of the Women's Coalition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred. While I was listening to the noble Lord, I thought that we might appoint him treasurer because he said that getting money is no problem. I can tell him that, from the point of view of the Women's Coalition, it is a big problem.
When we set up the Women's Coalition, we tried to bring together a cross-community group of men and women, believe it or not, to look at setting up a political party that would present an agreed agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he was in Northern Ireland last week and another noble Lord said that he had also been over. I live in Northern Ireland. I live in Belfast. I live in the Shankhill Road in Belfast, and Y can tell the House that intimidation is rife. You would be intimidated for a lot less than getting a donation from a foreign donor. I can be intimidated for getting down to my car at the wrong time of the day.
What are the facts of life in Northern Ireland? For a long time, politics has not been at the centre of thinking for ordinary people. People decided that they wanted to do something about it. It was not the easiest of projects to put together. You are putting together a group of people from both sides of the community in order to organise themselves into a political party. It was not the easiest of projects, but it has been achieved by the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and by the Alliance Party. It is possible.
However, as noble Lords will know, putting together any kind of project takes funding. It takes funding to have full-time staff, to equip offices, to hold meetings and to deal with correspondence. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I am sure that in the early days the SDLP had that problem. The party would have looked for someone to support it. When a small party like the Women's Coalition decides to get going, where does it get the means to do it? Where does it get
352
the funds to do it? Various methods of funding have to be looked at. Funding has to be sought. I say right now that such means of funding should be transparent. The Women's Coalition believes that funding should be transparent to all and that a proper audit trail should be in place for public scrutiny. We have never done any differently.
A small party like the Women's Coalition does not have access to funding from trade union members or to funding from private business. Many businesses would shy away from giving support to a political party within Northern Ireland. Noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland know that to be a fact of life. Even if such funding were possible, it has to be remembered that Northern Ireland is a very small place. We have a plethora of political parties seeking funding. Therefore, we have to find ways of getting funding through other channels.
I have to say at this point that the Women's Coalition owes a debt of gratitude to the people of the Republic of Ireland. They funded us very generously to help us to get started. If the order were to fall today, where would such funding come from? I understand that noble Lords have been talking about the large parties. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the Official Unionist Party and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the SDLP. They are large parties. They have a great deal of money and can fund themselves. But I am talking about small groups of people who want to change the political way forward in Northern Ireland. They are tired of confrontational and megaphone diplomacy and want to get away from that. They want to fight elections. How do we do that? Do we go along to the SDLP or the Official Unionists and say, "We hear you have a load of money. Give us some"? We would not get it.
I find myself in a bind. I am not opposed to the amendment. I understand what the amendment seeks and would not disagree with it. I have already said that any funding for political parties in Northern Ireland should be scrutinised. But if the order were to fall today, small groups like the Women's Coalition would find it hard to survive, let alone grow. That is what we are after. We are trying to make the organisation grow.
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords. I understand that those who support the amendment seek in some way to starve funds from the like of Sinn Fein. Noble Lords need to reflect carefully on whether that would be achieved. I have to tell the House that it would not be so. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has already said that these people would find another way of bringing in the money. If the order is not passed, the Women's Coalition and parties like it will suffer the most. That would do immense damage to a great many people in Northern Ireland who are seeking to get away from

353
confrontational politics. I ask noble Lords to think very deeply about this matter and I urge the House to support the order.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we have just hear a powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. It is a great pleasure to speak after her in the debate.
In reluctantly accepting the need for this order to be passed unamended, we are acknowledging the reality that Northern Ireland's political system has not yet reached the point where all desirable legislative provisions can apply. This is regrettable but it is a fact.
The noble and learned Lord the Minister has already presented the case for why Northern Ireland should be exempted from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act in two main respects: that the names of donors to political parties need not be disclosed, and that the Northern Ireland political parties may receive funds from overseas.
The first exemption is required because of the need for anonymity where intimidation or worse are still ever present. Until the political life of Northern Ireland becomes more peaceful, the rules applying in Britain should not be enforced in Northern Ireland. Moreover, there is the additional fact that the professional classes have all but forsaken participation in political life and the prospect of the public disclosure of donations to political parties would be a further disincentive to any political involvement on their part. That would be regrettable; there is more than enough alienation from politics as it is.
As to allowing foreign donations, again, this is to accept the reality of the situation. As the Minister has pointed out, Sinn Fein operates as a political party both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent it from moving its funds across the border between the two jurisdictions. I should declare an interest at this point as a board member of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. During the elections to the assembly, we gave donations to all the parties described by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as the "centre parties". I can tell noble Lords from experience—I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that I did not go over simply for lunch; I stayed for eight years in another capacity and I did not enjoy free transport or any other such benefits—that the political parties in Northern Ireland are chronically underfunded in comparison with their British counterparts. To that end, I endorse entirely what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. If ever there was a case for the state funding of political parties, surely it is Northern Ireland. But that discussion is for another day.
Along with all Members of this House, we on these Benches would like to see political parties in Northern Ireland regulated in precisely the same way as political parties in Britain—as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, seeks to achieve. But it is premature to attempt to do that now, which is why we shall oppose the amendment. However, no one would wish to see this disapplication order enforced if
354
circumstances change for the better and it could be cancelled ahead of the time period of four years within which it is set to operate in the first instance. To that end, I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord say that if conditions were to become favourable, the Government would review the operation of the order with a view to rescinding it before four years had passed. Would he be willing to say that he would go further and undertake formally to look at the continuing need for the order after it has been in operation for two years? If such an assurance could be given, we on these Benches would support even more strongly the approval of this order.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I greatly respect all that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, and I understand her problems. Unfortunately, however, the party that is likely to gain the most from this will be Sinn Fein/IRA. It has the biggest sums coming in and, sadly, the most desperate plans to fund. It is the political wing of an armed paramilitary organisation.
What has been its record since the Belfast agreement? We have released all the IRA prisoners, reduced Army numbers and virtually destroyed the RUC, the police force which has saved countless lives and lost many of its own. What has Sinn Fein/IRA done, except to ask for more? We were told that the restructuring of the police as the result of the Patten report was to open the door to Catholics so as to achieve fair representation in the police force and thus gain the confidence of the Republican community. Everyone but those serving on the Patten commission knew that the reason why so few Catholics served in the RUC was that their lives and those of their families were at risk from Sinn Fein/IRA if they joined.
Once the Bill was passed and a 50 per cent quota was assured, we asked the Minister a question. Would Sinn Fein/IRA and, indeed, the SDLP and the Church tell Catholics that they could now join without fear? The Government maintained a touching faith that this would happen. We knew that it would not. Sinn Fein/IRA and, I am sorry to say, the SDLP are now demanding more powers for the police board, the abolition of the Special Branch—incidentally, our chief protection against bombs on the mainland—and the inclusion of paramilitaries released from prison in the district policing partnerships. Once again, we would be putting the Kray brothers in to police the criminals.
Sinn Fein/IRA promised to divulge the whereabouts of nine of the disappeared, whom they had murdered. Only three bodies were produced, but the IRA secured splendid media coverage for its caring attitude. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have refused to encourage those who have come forward as witnesses to the Omagh bombing because they do not recognise British justice. Why then, are they causing us to spend upwards of £30 million so far on the Bloody Sunday inquiry?

355
I am weary of telling the House about the beatings and the exiles that Sinn Fein/IRA, as well as the Loyalists, continue to carry out on their own people. It was described only recently as "paramilitary domestic housekeeping". If this were happening in England, would it be tolerated? Of course not. In the Belfast agreement, and over and over again since, the Government have ignored the IRA when it told the truth—i.e. that it would never decommission its arms—and believed it when it spoke with a forked tongue.
How many times have we explained in this House that when the IRA says that it will "consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict", what it really means is the total removal of British forces and the destruction of the RUC as preconditions for something which it never intends to do? It has said again and again that it will never decommission. The ridiculous so-called "confidence-building measure" of allowing two middle-aged politicians—not soldiers and certainly not General de Chastelain—to take a look in the dead of night at arms which they will be wholly unable to identify, is another indication of the contempt in which it holds us and mirrors how deeply Mitchel McLaughlin holds us in contempt. Only yesterday he told the Bloody Sunday inquiry that he had absolutely no idea whether Mr McGuinness was a member of the IRA.
Whenever the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister go to Northern Ireland, we know that more concessions will be made, but never by the IRA. General de Chastelain's report published in December 2000 states clearly that the IRA representative has not gone near the commission. For that reason, it is difficult to understand, other than perhaps through thought transference, how the IRA could say, on 5th December, that it has not broken contact with the commission. It has not been seen near the commission.
The commission believes it to be crucial to secure substantial engagement with representatives from the IRA—as it has had with the Loyalists—as soon as possible if it is to meet the June 2001 deadline. That will never happen. I can tell noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government will make more concessions, but the IRA will do absolutely nothing but ask for even more. In the meantime, it is achieving all of its objectives.
According to the Irish Times of 13th February, by this summer, the RUC will have lost one-half of its senior management. Some 51 of those officers are taking early redundancy and, indeed, have already left. One-half of the detective branch will have left by the summer. This is affecting not only the RUC; senior Garda officers are now alarmed at the reduction of strength and effectiveness of policing in Northern Ireland. Morale is collapsing. The Garda has stated that there will be a major deficit of policing in the North. The Irish people and the Dublin Government should be worrying about that as well, but of course we are not worrying about it.
356
All this is the work of Sinn Fein/IRA. It cannot be right, on top of everything else that it has received, to give it the ability to raise limitless foreign funds without control. I fully accept that it is difficult to police, but we have done it on other occasions. Why cannot we do it now? I do not know of any other political party which conducts its canvassing by breaking the limbs of young boys and girls with iron bars. If this order goes through, it will send a terrible message of appeasement and sheer stupidity.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have been interested to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I should like to put a brief question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Even if one rejects the powerful and well-informed argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—although I would never do so—and continued to insist on the need for anonymity for donors resident in Northern Ireland, what is the justification for exempting Northern Ireland parties from having to declare the total sum received by way of donations from abroad in any given period, without having to identify individual donors? It is difficult to see how such an exemption can be justified.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, when the Government introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, they did so on the grounds that it was to restore confidence in UK public life and thereby encourage a greater degree of public participation. Both were worthy objectives.
They sought to do this through two principles: first, the principle of transparency; and, secondly, the principle of independent supervision. Transparency was to be achieved by disclosure, and independent supervision was to be achieved by the creation of an independent electoral commission. This order drives a stake through the heart of both principles.
I listened when the Minister spoke about the need to avoid transparency and the disclosure of donations in Northern Ireland. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, speak on this issue, it seems to me that "fig-leaf" is an inadequate description of what the Minister said.
I am more concerned about the impact that this order will have on the reputation of the Electoral Commission. The Act is half the size of a telephone directory, and it is difficult to see how an Act of that size will encourage public participation. With all its sanctions, some of which are of a criminal nature, it is likely to achieve the reverse. If the Act is to achieve many of the objectives we hoped for, it will be because the Electoral Commission is independent and above reproach.
Today, the Minister has said that the Electoral Commission is not to be trusted with information about donations and it is not to be trusted to keep an audit trail, albeit on an entirely private and confidential basis. If the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act is to be effective, the Electoral Commission must be effective. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cope.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the greater number of people in Northern Ireland—by that, I do not mean the unionist or Protestant majority, but the sensible, law-abiding people of all religions and of none—take the view that they do not wish this order to be imposed. As a democrat, I therefore have to support the amendment.
The order will permit "Northern Ireland parties" to receive global foreign funding but will place no obligation on them to keep records of donations received or to disclose the value or source of donations. I join other noble Lords and plead with the Minister to place his trust—and to encourage others to place their trust—in the Electoral Commission. During my time in active politics, I have always found that electoral officers, who conduct elections at all levels, are people of absolute integrity. I have the greatest confidence in the commissioner and his commission in this regard. While a reluctance to publish names is understandable—that case has been made—I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will decide that no one should try to oppose records of donations being submitted in strict confidence to the Electoral Commissioner and his commission.
I do not believe that parties in Northern Ireland should be treated differently from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. If foreign funding is banned in mainland Britain and transparency is deemed necessary, the same should apply to Northern Ireland.
As your Lordships are aware, the legislation to which this order is to apply, or, in this case, to disapply—I refer to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—was founded on the fifth report of the Neill committee. In that report, Recommendation 24 states:
"Political parties should in principle be banned from receiving foreign donations".
It has been pointed out already that there was a slightly different, or amending, recommendation in that report. Paragraph 29 stated:
"In relation … to political parties in Northern Ireland, the definition of a permissible source should also include a citizen of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Republic subject to compliance with the Republic's Electoral Act".
But the fifth report did not recommend that Northern Ireland parties should be able to receive unrestricted global funding. It provided for a limited exception, a limited extension, to permit funding from the Republic of Ireland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, that that funding is not a major issue.
For your Lordships' information, the Republic's Electoral Act does not prohibit foreign funding at this time. However, as has been pointed out, the Republic's Prime Minister strongly indicated in the dying months of last year that such a prohibition will be introduced. Concrete proposals have not yet been made available, but I have good reason to believe that legislation will be introduced in the current parliamentary session.
358
It is not surprising that the Republic is to introduce a package of funding reforms similar to those suggested in the Neill report when two recent investigatory tribunals have found scandal and corruption to be rife. However, it may be more of an influence that parties in the South fear, as we do, the immense wealth that Sinn Fein is amassing. The Irish Parliament has two good reasons for bringing its law into line with that which currently applies in Great Britain, but not in Northern Ireland.
Men such as Martin Galvin use a romanticised image of Irish republicanism to prey on the purses of people in America who have not witnessed—as we in various parts of the United Kingdom have witnessed—the misery and sheer brutality of the Provisional IRA and its so-called dissidents, who are in fact its allies, in its campaign in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom over 30 years. His malevolent skills are now being deployed for the benefit of the so-called dissident elements of the IRA. As they are a happy band of brothers, I do not think that they will be too worried about the niceties of accountancy.
It was reported in the Irish Times on 9th December last year that the Friends of Sinn Fein organisation has raised 4.5 million US dollars for the IRA's political wing. An amazing 500,000 US dollars were raised at one annual fund-raising dinner at the Sheraton Hotel in New York in November last year, only three months ago. I wonder how many cocktail parties it held over Christmas.
Those figures were discovered because the Friends of Sinn Fein in America—there is a lesson here for us—as an agency raising funds in the United States for a foreign organisation, must make annual returns to the American Department of Justice. So all has been revealed. In the six months to the end of October 1999, Friends of Sinn Fein raised 396,000 US dollars; in the same period, according to the department, Friends of Fianna Fail raised 116,000 US dollars in the United States. Sinn Fein also raised substantial funds in Australia through Friends of Sinn Fein Australia.
I should prefer to see a complete ban on foreign funding for Northern Ireland parties. But if an exception must be made, it should be limited to the Republic of Ireland, in the hope—now the expectation, based on the declaration of the Irish Prime Minister—that it, too, will eventually prohibit foreign funding. Indeed, it is to be hoped that that will happen in the not-too-distant future; it needs to be in the present parliamentary Session. It is appropriate at this point to remember that nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales could have benefited from foreign funding, but none has been made available to them.
Transparency in the funding of Northern Ireland political parties will simply not exist if the order is approved unamended. If a Northern Ireland party cannot identify the source of a donation, there will be no issue. Anonymous donations will continue to be permitted in Northern Ireland. No improperly obtained funds will be subject to forfeiture, as there will be no concept in Northern Ireland of "improperly

359
obtained funds". Sources need not be voluntary, as is implicit in the term "donor"; racketeering will continue to be a form of funding for paramilitary-linked parties in Northern Ireland—indeed it will be made legitimate by this order.
Acceptance of the order will mean that the words,
"evasion of restrictions constituting an offence",
will not apply to Northern Ireland. As there will be no restrictions, there will be no restrictions to evade. Northern Ireland parties will not need to concern themselves with reporting on donations, weekly, quarterly or otherwise, during an election period or at other times.
In giving evidence to the Neill Committee, Unionists expressed concerns that public disclosure of donors might provide security problems, but those concerns did not preclude transparency and accountability by having records scrutinised by the electoral commission. For the life of me, I cannot see the objection to that clear-cut, straightforward way out.
The consequences of Sinn Fein dictating this piece of legislation in this Parliament, as it did with the Disqualifications Act, appear to be even more far-reaching than the Government anticipated. The order provides for political parties in Northern Ireland potentially to receive foreign funding generally, and to use the funding resource generally. This raises the issue of referenda already referred to.
The reference in the Belfast agreement,
"within the concept of the principle of consent",
provides for the possibility of a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, although such a referendum may never take place. It is of concern to all that if a referendum on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland were to take place, disproportionate funding would then be available to the different sides in a referendum campaign on the status of Northern Ireland.
Lavish campaigning by republicans and nationalists in any future referendum on Northern Ireland's constitutional position would not persuade Unionists to be anything other than unionist. However, disproportionate funding could affect the turn-out in any such campaign. The lack of foresight in regard to this exemption to suit Sinn Fein will result in organisations being specifically set up to campaign in any such referendum—unlike political parties, which will not be permitted to receive foreign funding.
This lack of foresight becomes even more apparent when considering the issue of UK-wide referenda. A British mainland party banned from receiving foreign donations could use a Northern Ireland party to receive foreign funding and to campaign on its behalf. There is no restriction on where Northern Ireland parties spend the resources obtained from foreign funding: the provision also works that way round. Surely this, too, must be regulated. Indeed, the party in government has a sister party in Northern Ireland; however, it is more likely that Sinn Fein would help the government who have been so helpful in legislating on its behalf.
360
It is apparent that the order does no service to Northern Ireland or to its electorate. They gain no transparency, and they risk their politics being heavily influenced by foreign countries. Politics in Northern Ireland will be aided only by the removal of the contamination that is implicit in foreign funding. The transition from fascism to democracy that we all hope certain individuals in Northern Ireland will make, can only be slowed by their organisations being allowed the leeway to continue their economic dependency on extortion, drug dealing, robberies and foreign funding. Northern Ireland can only benefit from firm regulation of such contributions to political parties in line with the rest of the United Kingdom; and that can only assist in the restoration of stability and normality for which we are all striving.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this has been a good debate on an important order. I think all of us would agree that the principles of openness, transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties are principles for which we would all strive—none more so than the members of the Neill committee, who, in the course of taking evidence for their reports on the funding of political parties, went to Belfast and took evidence on the issue from a large number of people who wished to give it. The evidence that they received led them to propose the exception that forms the first basis of the exemption in the proposals before the House; namely, that sources within Northern Ireland would not need to be revealed.
The form and substance of that evidence was perhaps best summarised in a speech that was made in another place by the Member for South Down. He said:
"We have resisted violence over the years and have tried to create a normal political society. We have been tested in every possible way by sectarianism and violence. Now, every morning in news bulletins, we hear about pipe bombing. That is where we are at. In that context, we asked the Neill committee and the Government to exempt Northern Ireland parties for a trial period of four years to ascertain whether we could achieve some normality and subsequently be covered by the whole Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/01; col. 885.]
It was not the Government in any concession to Sinn Fein who decided to accept that evidence; it was the Neill committee, in relation to the first exemption. The Government decided to act in relation to that.
Noble Lords opposite have suggested that this exemption is some kind of concession to Sinn Fein. This is not a provision for which Sinn Fein is asking. The democratic constitutional parties are asking for it. As to whether it will benefit Sinn Fein, perhaps it is worthwhile to quote again the words of the Member for South Down, who went on to say:
"Hon. Members may be worried about the wrongdoers doing wrong, but they will continue to do wrong anyway. They will have the advantage of doing wrong and not being caught. If a paramilitary organisation wants to get funds from Timbuktu, it will get funds from Timbuktu irrespective of any legislation passed by this House. However, the democratic political parties, which form a bulwark against such activities, must be given the ability to sustain themselves until the day arrives when we have normal politics in Northern Ireland".—[Col. 886.]

361
So the democratic constitutional parties do not agree with the proposition that has been put by noble Lords opposite. The parties believe that this order helps them, and that it makes little difference to what happens to the paramilitary parties. I note that that view is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who spent eight years in the Province. We believe that the proposition has considerable force. We do not want there to be exceptions for Northern Ireland, but we recognise the reality.
Perhaps I may deal with the points raised. In effect, they fall into four categories. First, the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Cope, together with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked, "Why don't you record, if not publish, the donations that have been received?" With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I must point out that this is not a provision which in any way seeks to criticise the Electoral Commission; rather, it simply recognises that people are more wary of giving donations if they are recorded, irrespective of the fact that promises of confidentiality are given.
The honourable Member for South Down quoted from a letter received by the SDLP from the Ulster Unionist Party, which says:
"As you know, business people and individuals are already wary of making donations to political parties and are likely to be even more sensitive if their donations are to be recorded".
I stress the word "recorded", not publicised. The letter continues:
"I am afraid that reassuring people and organisations that their donations will be recorded but not published will make no difference".
One can understand. It is a point about perception, not a point about the reliability, or otherwise, of the Electoral Commission. No one would seek for a moment to suggest that the commission was unreliable.
Secondly, it is said that there is no need for an exemption in respect of all foreign donations and that surely it would be enough to deal with the Republic of Ireland alone. The problem in relation to the Republic of Ireland, is that, as the Neill committee recommended, such a provision would almost certainly be unenforceable for two reasons. First, the Electoral Commission has no power in the Republic of Ireland to require information that would be necessary to enforce such a ban; and, secondly, if one accepts the principle that there should be no recording of donations, there would be no basis whatever for seeking to enforce it because one would not have the basic information. Therefore, once one accepts the principle that the Republic of Ireland should be an exception, there would be no meaningful way to give effect to that without there being some sort of worldwide exemption.
The third point related to the referendum. This would allow political parties to obtain funding in relation to referendum campaigns. As long as the money is given to a political party, it is true to say that
362
those referendum campaigns could both be in respect of a Northern Ireland-only issue and in relation to a United Kingdom issue. But, as noble Lords will know, the Act makes provision for the fact that there should be a limit on expenditure in referendum campaigns. So there will be restrictions on the amount that can be obtained from abroad. That limit will apply right across the United Kingdom in the event of a UK campaign, and it will apply in Northern Ireland if it is a Northern Ireland campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked whether the Government would be willing to undertake to review the working of the order after a two-year period. I can tell the noble Lord that we most certainly would be willing to do so. I hereby give that undertaking to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why we should not record the total amount that would be obtained from abroad. We do not believe that that would be a wise provision because such a declaration could not be validated in any meaningful way: there would neither be the recording of individual donations, nor the recording of their source. Therefore, political parties would be able to say anything they liked in that respect. It would not be appropriate to have a provision that allowed such a situation when there could be no real validation of it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked whether there was vires for such an order. Yes, there is. It is to be found under Section 70(1)(b) of the Act.
I earnestly ask noble Lords to consider the evidence given to the Neill commission in Northern Ireland, and the views of the Northern Irish parties. This is not an order designed to help the paramilitaries, or those parties associated with them. It is an exemption order designed to help the constitutional and democratic parties in Northern Ireland upon which the future depends. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not add to the debate at this stage. I wish simply to press my amendment and test the opinion of the House.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 154.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bowness, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Astor, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Burnham, L.[Teller]

Attlee, E.

Buscombe, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Caithness, E.

Barber, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Biffen, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blaker, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

363

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cox, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Craig of Radky, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montrose, D.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Naseby, L.

Elles, B.

Noakes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Erroll, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Feldman, L.

Palmer, L.

Fitt, L.

Palumbo, L.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Goschen, V.

Plumb, L.

Hanham, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Reay, L.

Higgins, L.

Rees, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Renton, L.

Hogg, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hooper, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hylton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Strange, B.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laird, L.

Tenby, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Listowel, E.

Vivian, L.

Lucas, L.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Marsh, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Addington, L.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Alli, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Amos, B.

David, B.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Avebury, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bach, L.

Dholakia, L.

Barker, B.

Donoughue, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Elder, L.

Billingham, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ezra, L.

Blood, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Falkland, V.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Filkin, L.

Bragg, L.

Gale, B.

Brennan, L.

Geraint, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brookman, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Burlison, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Chandos, V.

Goudie, B.

Christopher, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Greaves, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grenfell, L.

364

Hardy of Wath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L

Haskel, L.

Razzall, L.

Hayman, B.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rennard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Roper, L.

Jacobs, L.

Russell, E.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Sandberg, L.

Sawyer, L.

Jeger, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Judd, L.

Serota, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sharman, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Layard, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Simon, V.

Levy, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lipsey, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Taverne, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thornton, B.

McNally, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Maddock, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Uddin, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warner, L.

Mishcon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mitchell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Molloy, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitty, L.

Newby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wilkins, B.

Paul, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
On question, Motion agreed to

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Vehicle crime is a serious problem and one which people are concerned about. Nearly 400,000 cars are stolen each year and over 120,000 of these are never recovered. Vehicle crime accounts for nearly a fifth of all recorded crime accounts for nearly a fifth of all recorded.crime and costs over £3 billion a year. It causes distress and inconvenience to victims and ties up the resources of the criminal justice system.
We are publicly committed to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent in the five years from April 1999 and we have made progress. Effective targeting by the police working in partnership with manufacturers and the

365
community has helped us to reduce vehicle crime by over 20 per cent since we took office. But we are never complacent in these matters: more can and should be done.
This Bill has the potential to make a significant impact. It will make vehicle crime less attractive by reducing opportunities for professional car thieves to profit and could prevent up to 39,000 car thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance "theft claims" per year, and it has been thought through. The original proposals come from the Vehicle Crime Reduction Team whose members comprised a cross-section of people from motor manufacturers and dealers, insurers, Home Office, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the police and, importantly, motorists. And, of course, it has been thoroughly test driven, as it were, and scrutinised by the other place.
Part I of the Bill introduces regulation of motor salvage operators. Most salvage businesses operate to high standards and fully within the law. But we have received strong representations from the police to suggest significant criminality within the industry. Over a third of stolen cars are never recovered. The motor salvage industry offers opportunities for stolen cars to have their identities disguised or for them to be broken up and resold as parts. There is also a link with insurance fraud. Some cars which are reported stolen are sold to motor salvage dealers and broken up for their parts. We need to flush out the criminal element from this industry and support honest dealers.
So Clauses 1 to 6 require motor salvage operators to register with their local authority and to renew their registration at three-yearly intervals. The local authority would not register an applicant unless it was satisfied that the person was fit and proper to run a motor salvage business. An applicant refused registration or a person whose registration was cancelled by the local authority would have the right to make representations and appeal against that decision.
Clauses 7 to 12 will allow us to make sure that registered operators keep appropriate records, including a note of the destruction of vehicles, and notify the registration authority of any changes to their details, and they empower the police to enter and inspect registered premises. The effect would be to make it difficult to dispose of stolen vehicles, and people contemplating insurance fraud would be deterred by having to give their details to a motor salvage operator on selling their vehicle and by the prospect of committing a further offence under Clause 12 if they give false details.
The second part of the Bill focuses on number plate suppliers. Noble Lords will perhaps be as surprised as I was to learn that there is currently no control over the issue of number plates. So criminals can easily buy new plates to disguise a car they have stolen. We are not just talking about vehicle crime. Burglars may use false number plates to cover their traces when making a getaway. Terrorists may use false number plates and others may use them to deceive speed cameras. We believe that we need to block that loophole.
366
Clauses 17 to 23 require number plate suppliers to register with the Secretary of State; in practice the DVLA. Number plate suppliers will have to allow the police to enter and inspect their records without a warrant. It will be an offence to supply an unregistered supplier and to sell false plates.
The prospect that details of the transaction will be recorded should deter prospective purchasers of number plates who require them for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide the police with the means to trace the source of plates used in criminal activities.
There would be a power under Clause 34 to make regulations prescribing additional information to be held on number plates and the way in which it should be contained or displayed. The information on the number plate will be linked to the vehicle for which it is intended. This will make it difficult to swap vehicle identities. The clause has been drafted to allow us to make full use of new technology—for example, putting bar codes with relevant details on number plates—as it develops.
Part 3 of the Bill deals with a range of additional measures to combat vehicle crime. The present law allows written-off vehicles to return to the road without being checked. This allows people who have tampered with a vehicle illegally to get away with it. The Bill will allow an identity check to be carried out on a vehicle before a new registration document can be issued and the vehicle legitimately returned to the road.
Clause 36 contains our proposal for tackling uninsured driving—an offence that frequently goes undetected. The motor insurance industry has offered the police bulk access to their new database. We want the police to take advantage of this offer which will mean that they can search out and take appropriate action against those who drive uninsured. This will make people think again before taking to the roads without insurance and will save money for the insurance industry, and ultimately all policyholders, who have to cover the costs of accidents caused by uninsured drivers.
Clause 37 extends the time limit for prosecuting unauthorised vehicle taking. So-called "joyriders" can be involved in accidents and cause deep distress to their victims; and often their offences are the gateway to more serious crime.
Some escape justice because they cannot be charged within the six-month time limit the law allows. Recent advances in DNA and fingerprinting mean that evidence often comes to light after the time limit has expired. This clause will extend the time limit to three years and enable proceedings for taking a vehicle without authority to be brought at any time within six months from the date when sufficient knowledge came to the attention of the prosecuting authorities. We want to signal that this is not an offence to be treated lightly. Joyriding often goes hand in hand with speeding. Rolling out safety cameras nationally is a vital part of our road safety strategy.

367
Clause 38 enables the Secretary of State to fund public bodies such as the police, highway authorities and courts in connection with their work in enforcing speed limits and red traffic signals. This will enable some of the revenue from fixed penalties to be recycled to fund and maintain more safety cameras. That will help the prevention and detection of speeding and red light running offences and, more importantly, it has a direct road safety benefit. More than 3,000 people die on our roads each year. Excessive speed is a major factor contributing to those tragedies. While there are other methods available for addressing inappropriate speed, we know that camera enforcement is very effective in dealing with it.
We want to build on this Government's excellent record of fighting car crime by tackling the root causes. Essentially, this means reducing the market for stolen cars. We will do this by regulating the motor salvage trade and the supply of number plates. Vehicle identity checks and new requirements for documentation by the DVLA will reinforce this system of regulation.
The Bill has three ancillary purposes. The first is to extend the time limit for prosecuting joyriders. The second is to make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving. The third is to provide funding for safety cameras. This is a comprehensive set of proposals designed to tackle vehicle crime. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
5.24 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is another regulatory Bill introducing a series of new regulatory regimes. I confess that I approach the Bill with a longstanding prejudice against extending new regulations too much. We should recognise that it is another set of new burdens on businesses, including some businesses which will not realise initially that they are likely to be covered by the regulations. Another set of duties is being imposed on local authorities, trading standards officers and so on. They have much to do already and have difficulty in paying for enough staff. It involves also a new set of duties on the police.
Having said that, I think that the case for the Bill has been made out. It has been discussed for some time; and I accept the Bill. We shall not oppose it but we want to go through the Bill in some detail in Committee and later stages. The Minister made it clear that the Bill focuses on the theft of vehicles. Most of what is described as "vehicle crime" relates to theft of goods from within the vehicle—the radio and so on—as opposed to the theft of the vehicle. However, I do not complain that the Bill does not cover that aspect. It is difficult to cover every aspect of a subject in a Bill.
It is important to remember that the Bill relates not only to the theft of cars but also to the theft of motor cycles and commercial vehicles. As the Minister explained, Part 1 deals with the regulation of salvage dealers. We understand that there are about 3,000 companies which will need to register under the
368
provision. About three-quarters of those in the salvage business, and probably about 10 per cent in the dismantling business, are in trade associations operating codes of practice already with the DVLA. The Bill extends the provisions statutorily to everyone operating in this field.
Enforcement will be left to a considerable degree with the police force. In the Explanatory Notes, the cost to the police is given as £110,000 a year. I found that figure a little difficult. If it involves full-time policemen, that figure would cover enforcement by four policemen in the whole of England and Wales. That does not imply that it will be given a high priority. I realise that such enforcement will involve a policeman undertaking the work as part of his duty. At the same time, it is not a large sum.
I like the provision which provides for an appeal against decisions to the magistrates' court. When discussing recently the Private Security Industry Bill we pressed the Government for such a provision without success, although we may return to the issue on that Bill.
There will be a cost in taking a car to a salvage dealer, particularly when he now has to carry out extra procedures. There are extra complications. He has to be registered and so on. Will it lead to more cars being dumped in lay-bys and elsewhere? That is a problem already. For some days, it is difficult to know whether a car has been dumped. Then things start to disappear from it and after a while it becomes obvious that it has been dumped. However, by that time it is difficult to move it because it has no wheels left. Not long after that, somebody sets fire to it. That is potentially exceptionally dangerous, because there may well be some fuel left in the vehicle. I do not intend my point to be destructive of the Bill. Even if the Bill leads to more cars being dumped, that does not necessarily destroy its point, but it is worth drawing attention to that issue.
In Committee we shall also want to consider the powers of entry. There appear to be stronger powers to enter registered premises than to enter unregistered premises, yet inspectors are more likely to want to look at the unregistered ones to see whether they should be registered. At least a warrant will be required from a Justice of the Peace, which is more than can be said for the provisions of the Private Security Industry Bill, under which official inspectors will be able to enter any premises at any time without a warrant. The powers in Clause 9 are restricted to business premises, not domestic ones. That appears to be another contrast with the other Bill. Clause 26 provides similar powers of entry that apply to the police and to "an authorised person", which presumably means the local authority staff responsible for that part of the Bill.
I had some difficulty deciding what Clause 26(1) meant. No doubt we can pursue that later. The second half of that subsection appears to restrict the right of entry to business premises. I hope that that is what is intended. The clause relates to selling registration plates. A lot of garages sell number plates in addition to their other activities, but they are not necessarily

369
prepared and sold in one specific place. They may be made in one small area of the garage, but they are sold wherever the car is collected or sold. The place within the business where that is done cannot be inspected separately.
This may be a misunderstanding, but there also seems to be a problem with the registration of destroyed vehicles. The DVLA must send out a form even for a vehicle that it believes to have been destroyed. In future, it will be supposed to know if the vehicle has been broken up. Instead of reporting to the police when they suspect that, as they currently do, I hope that DVLA officers will be able to refuse to send out a relicensing form to prevent the relicensing of a destroyed vehicle, except for those that have been totally rebuilt, which can be dealt with.
Part 2 deals with number plates and regulates their suppliers. Even after the Minister's comments, I am not sure about the intended effect on the appearance of number plates. What will be on the number plate? Clearly there will be numbers. I am not sure whether the plates with fancy writing and italics that have started to appear will remain legal, even if they are legal now. I suspect that they are not, but they seem to be growing in number.
There is also a proliferation of number plates with "GB" built into them instead of the old-fashioned "GB" plate, which I prefer. I am not sure what the Government's intention is. Are we all going to have number plates with a "GB" symbol at the end?
I am alarmed by some people's comments about the possibility of compulsory flags on plates. I take that view not only about Euro flags, but also about Union Jacks or even the flag of St George. I declare an interest of a sort as a vice-president of the Royal Society of St George, which encourages the use of the flag of St George on appropriate occasions, but number plates are not an appropriate place for a flag, whether it is the Euro flag or the flag of St George.
In addition, there is talk about being able to identify the car from the plate. The Minister mentioned that just now, but we shall need to be told more about the idea, because it is not clear from the Bill what is intended.
I also hope that there will be no restriction on the number of number plates allowed. Many people with trailers, caravans or horse boxes require another number plate or two. Those number plates tend to fall off sometimes and need replacing. In addition, the trailers of articulated lorries have temporary number plates that can be changed daily, or even more than once a day, as different tractors are used to haul the trailer. Some lorries change the tractor half-way through a journey, in a suitable car park or motorway service station. They need to be able to move their number plates. Those number plates will be attached to the trailer or caravan rather than to the vehicle, so it is difficult to know how an identification plate will work in those circumstances.
370
Part 2 applies only to England and Wales. My comments about flags and other issues relate to Clause 33, which also applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions for regulations will not apply in Scotland. I do not know what the Scottish Parliament will make of all that. Presumably it is responsible. I suppose that those who live near the Border will have a choice of getting their number plates in England or across the Border. I see no provision that requires someone who lives south of the border to buy their number plate from a registered supplier in England rather from than an unregistered one in Scotland.
Part 3 deals with a variety of matters, including the total loss of a vehicle. I realise that insurance applies to most vehicles but not necessarily to all. If a person disposes of a vehicle which is not insured, will he be covered by the system? I know that in many respects—although I am not sure about vehicles—the Government do not believe in insurance. They are self-insured. They do not bother to insure their buildings on the grounds that they have so many that, if one burns down, that will be all right. The fact that the Government have so many buildings acts as a form of insurance, and they do not believe in giving the profit to an insurance company. That is not a party-political point; governments of all parties have taken that view for a long time. However, I am not sure how matters stand in relation to vehicles and the final disposal of vehicles.
I believe that the Minister said that Clause 37 allows money raised, for example, from safety cameras to go to other organisations, such as police forces, local authorities and others. However, Clause 37 seems to me to allow only the funding of magistrates' court costs. Therefore, I must have misunderstood the Minister. However, presumably another provision exists which provides for money to fund the use of further safety cameras.
Although in some respects the Bill will bring about a considerable increase in the burdens on business and others, I believe that overall it will have a beneficial effect in tackling the theft of vehicles. The previous Conservative government managed to achieve a massive fall—27 per cent, I believe—in the level of vehicle crime in their last few years in office. I believe that it is important to continue that work.
In a sense, it is difficult for the Government to carry on that work because police numbers have dropped and car thieves are being let out under the early release scheme. No doubt that is partly why the reduction in vehicle crime which occurred at the time of the previous government has slowed down a great deal. However, at least the Government will be able to say, "Well, we legislated and we introduced regulations", even if fewer people are available to enforce them. But the Government's objective of reducing the theft of vehicles is obviously desirable and that is why we shall not oppose the Bill. We shall, however, discuss it in some detail when we reach its later stages.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am pleased to offer support from these Benches for the principles of the Bill. As individuals, we are probably more likely to be the victims of vehicle crime than of any other crime. According to the European Secure Vehicle Alliance, one in eight of us can expect to be the victim of a vehicle crime in any one year. Given that a car is usually one of the most expensive purchases that we make, it is a high-value crime. Even if the vehicle is relatively inexpensive, the inconvenience and the sense of vulnerability engendered can be significant.
My own rather ancient and venerable vehicle was stolen from a residential part of Norwich some years ago—in fact, from the constituency of the Minister who is taking the Bill through the other place. I do not hold Mr Clarke personally responsible for the theft of my car, although I was fairly annoyed at the time, particularly when the vehicle turned up a few days later. I found it rather repugnant to be back inside the vehicle, and had the inconvenience of dealing with the insurance company, the DVLA, and so on.
The thieves had ransacked the car and I lost my mobile phone, all the documents and a collection of music cassettes. But the thieves clearly drew the line at a cassette by Barry Manilow, which they left ostentatiously on the seat. I believe that that shows that their taste in music is better than mine.
There is a rather sordid and sinister side to vehicle crime. Vehicles are often stolen as part of a wider net of criminality and subsequently used in other criminal acts. In some cases, personal safety can be compromised by vehicles which have been patched together or repaired with spare parts of dubious provenance. A member of my family once bought a car and was horrified to be approached by the police some months later when they found that the vehicle had been stolen and its identity changed.
The fact that in this country the level of vehicle crime is so much worse than in other comparative countries is due at least in part to our extraordinarily slack system of registration and documentation. Although we on these Benches are generally concerned about over-zealous regulation, in this case we believe that the risks to the health and safety of individuals, and the extent to which vehicle crime acts as a gateway to other crime, justify the introduction of a new regulatory regime.
There is always a balance to be struck between protection and regulation. However, with an estimated £1 billion worth of organised vehicle crime every year, in this case we believe that the balance falls on the side of regulation. In any event, at present many vehicle dismantlers must be registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act; they must keep records in order to comply with environmental protection legislation; and, shortly, they will have to comply with the European Union End of Life Vehicle Directive, when it comes into force.
However, I believe that we must be cautious not to over-exaggerate the contribution that the Bill will make to the overall reduction of crime. It is not easy
372
for a Bill of this type to deal with the growing incidence of theft from vehicles; nor does it deal in any way with the problem of joyriding, which was the motive behind the loss of my own vehicle. But I must say that if the thieves got any joy out of my car, it was more than I have ever done!
That type of problem—the opportunistic theft from vehicles and joyriding—is part of a wider problem of criminality and does not respond readily to legislative solutions. There is a limit to the extent to which legislation, and even zealous deterrence, can tackle the deeper societal problems.
However, we are not bereft of solutions, and we can learn much from a bottom-up approach in which an emphasis is placed on local solutions developed by local people. Area community safety strategies can make a huge difference when the effort is focused on particular areas of crime which matter to the communities. Perhaps I may give one example. Over a six-month period last year, vehicle crime in Milton Keynes fell by 34 per cent; during the same period, it increased in Slough—in the same police authority area—by 16 per cent.
That type of community approach can be helpful in tackling another hardy annual in the garden of vehicle problems—the abandoned car. Some local authorities now undertake to remove abandoned cars within 24 hours of their being reported. But that is contrary to legislation, which states that vehicles must be left in situ for seven days after a notice is posted. I wonder whether the Minister will consider changing the law, given the high level of complaints in relation to this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that an unwelcome side-effect of the regulatory regime may well be an increase in the number of abandoned cars.
Car parks present a particular problem. It always strikes me as odd that the owners of car parks are quite prepared to accept payment from motorists but offer little protection in return and do not accept liability. Multi-storey car parks are threatening places for individuals and their vehicles. My local authority in Suffolk has been awarded "secure car park" status for the two park and ride sites outside Ipswich. That means that they must provide good lighting; security officers patrol the site; and great care is taken in the design and maintenance of the sites to ensure that they are safe for vehicles and people.
I believe that we can do much more to encourage the people who look after one our most valuable assets to offer that type of quality assurance. In 1998 the Association of Chief Police Officers asked the Government to set a target of 2,000 secure car parks by the year 2000. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether that target was met. Imaginative campaigns, such as "We don't buy crime", seek to reduce the market for property stolen from vehicles, and they have also been successful. However, like the rest of us, criminals are highly mobile, and there is a need for a national dimension to those local campaigns.
Motor manufacturers are to be congratulated on the part that they have played in reducing vehicle theft. That is reflected in the lower theft rate for newer

373
vehicles. However, it takes time for the age profile of the vehicle fleet to change and for features such as laminated side windows to become universal. Given the value of our vehicles, it is ironic that much vehicle theft comes about as a result of carelessness. People leave keys in the ignition when they pop into the newsagent or pay for petrol.
That demonstrates that the education of vehicle owners still has a role to play. I wonder whether a useful addition to the Highway Code and the written part of the driving test would be a section on protecting oneself against vehicle crime. Young people are frequently the victims as well as the perpetrators, especially because they often have cheaper and less well protected cars.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Falkland, who cannot be with us, I also want to mention briefly the omission from the Bill of any mention of two-wheeled vehicles. The British Motorcyclists Federation tells me that only 15 per cent of stolen motor cycles are ever recovered, compared with 60 per cent of cars.
I also want to mention briefly the question of police resources, which I believe is something of a red herring in this context. I have spoken to the police about it. The police believe that a modest length of time will be required to introduce the Bill, and that that time will be worth while in terms of the time that will be saved through the benefits that the legislation will bring. In terms of wider community safety, which I mentioned earlier, police numbers are at the heart of any strategy. We on these Benches also deplore the fall in police numbers over the past four years. However, we also remember rather further back when, during the last Major administration, police numbers fell by 469 officers.
We should also look ahead. The police are developing a system called "Airwaves", in which every officer will have portable IT equipment that can link up with various data bases. We need to examine ways in which driving licences, vehicle registration documents, MOT certificates and the new registers that will be required by the Bill will link together to provide the police with the most comprehensive information as quickly as possible. The police will be able to access that information while they are out and about. That will enable them to do what the public want; namely, to be on the streets, where their presence provides a deterrent to criminals and a sense of security to the law abiding.
In view of the fact that vehicle crime, like everything else, is becoming globalised, I wonder whether the Minister can give me any assurances about measures to deal with the increasing problem of illicit vehicle imports and exports? I hope that I will not raise the blood pressure of too many noble Lords by venturing to suggest that we need to work closely with our European partners in that regard.
Finally, I turn to those parts of the Bill that relate to the use of cameras to enforce speed limits. As a county councillor in Suffolk, I was heavily involved in an extensive rural road safety campaign, which resulted in
374
a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries on Suffolk roads. That scheme has since become nationally recognised and is a bench-mark for other local authorities. I mention that to demonstrate my credentials on road safety in general and on speed in particular.
Cameras have a useful role to play in enforcing speed limits. The results of pilot schemes have been very encouraging and graphically demonstrate how effective such schemes can be in reducing speed and the number of accidents. There is overwhelming evidence of a link between inappropriate speed and the rate and severity of accidents. The hypothecation of speeding fines back to the authorities for re-use will stop the farce of having cameras without film and police who are unable to find the time to process fixed penalties. However, we need to emphasise that the main effort involves casualty reduction, not revenue raising. I am not sure whether such recycling of money—Liberal Democrats are generally in favour of recycling—is sustainable in the long run. I hope that money will also be available for casualty reduction schemes, such as junction realignment, safe crossings, traffic calming and educative campaigns. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would clarify whether Clause 38(1)(a), which refers to the "prevention" of such offences, includes highway authority expenditure on such schemes. In any event, we should consider a three-year review to assess the impact of the scheme and the future use of the funds.
In conclusion, we are broadly in favour of the Bill, in terms of its intent and actuality, but there are areas in which clarification is needed, assurances are sought and improvements need to be made. In that regard, we have an advantage over our friends in another place, across the iron carpet, in that our debate cannot be guillotined.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McNally for his advice and assistance and I look forward to the Bill's enactment.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill in general. Some of its early provisions, which are aimed at countering the practice of "ringing" and at related matters, tempt me to ask, not the present Government or the previous government but society in general, "What kept us so long?".
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, identified one or two wrinkles and tempered a little the sense of euphoria that has greeted the Bill. Like other noble Lords, however, my main concerns lie with Clause 38 in Part III of the Bill. As one who in recent years has championed the cause of hypothecation in this area, I say, like the ranks of Tuscany, "I can scarce forbear to cheer". The Government deserve to be congratulated on an epoch-making breakthrough by getting the Treasury to release its tentacles from some of the revenue that is collected from speeding fines and related traffic signal offences.

375
As a result, we may expect more cameras and cameras that actually contain film. We also welcome the rapid introduction of the new state-of-the-art digital cameras. We must now have a concerted offensive in particular against those who drive excessively fast in sensitive and potentially dangerous areas. The immediate task is not the persecution and alienation of the vast majority of motorists, who, on the whole, drive responsibility, but to control the few who speed past schools, use rat runs as if they were race tracks and terrorise the inhabitants of sleepy villages, whose streets are more suitable for horse-drawn traffic than cars that are driven as if the drivers were on the Brands Hatch circuit.
The problem of speeding is enormous. The plain truth is that most drivers, if they think about it at all—at times, I rather doubt whether they do—regard speed limits as something to be ignored if they can get away with doing so. I hasten to disclaim any holier than thou attitude in this regard. To paraphrase St Augustine, "Keep me from speeding, but not just yet". I am afraid that that probably goes for a good many noble Lords who are here tonight.
Even the most senior and law-abiding citizens are guilty. As a former magistrate, I take more of an interest in this matter than the average person. Many a time I have driven behind a sweet old lady who is gaily howling along in a built-up area at 43 miles an hour. On leaving the speed-limit zone, her speed remains the same. In other words, there has been no discernible reaction whatever to the presence and requirements of the limit.
There is of course another side to the picture. Some limits are absurdly low in view of the areas in which they operate. Some police, alas, do not always use common sense and seek to prosecute some who exceed the speed limit on a deserted motorway at 4 a.m. I should also mention the recent, and in my view ill-advised, hectoring of chief constables by interest groups that are intent on enforcing zero tolerance with regard to speeding. All of those factors are counterproductive i n terms of the task that lies ahead.
What is needed in a responsible and caring society, such as we hope ours is, is a cultural change in our perception of the offence. Thirty years ago no one thought twice about driving after a party. Today, to drink excessively and to drive is socially unacceptable. A similar sea change is necessary so far as speeding is concerned. That will not be easy to realise and it will not happen overnight. There are only a limited number of ways to 'tackle the problem. Education through advertising and in schools would be helpful but is unlikely to catch the key target group of persistently fast and reckless drivers. They exist just as much as does the hard core of persistent drink-drivers. Humps and pinch points have their uses but are expensive and often provoke anger among motorists. The two sure ways of gaining the objective are through fear of detection and through the pockets of persistent offenders. The increase in the use of penalty points will also have a salutary effect.
376
Perhaps I may be permitted to add an important footnote at this point, which is not emphasised sufficiently when such matters are discussed; namely, the less-than-responsible attitude of the motor manufacturing industry which contributes to the problem. Two factors basically sell cars: not safety, reliability, longevity—heaven knows, not longevity—or environmental friendliness but simply sex and speed. Of course, manufacturers would not put it quite like that. Sex, they tell us, is about looks and styling. And speed? Well, manufacturers tell us that it is not speed but acceleration that people need to get out of trouble. There seems to be an awful lot of trouble in our road system. As something of a footnote in an advertisement, one may find it stated that the top speed for the advertised model is twice the permitted maximum on motorways in this country. Indeed, that speed can be legally attained in only one place in the world; namely, on a German autobahn.
There is no doubt that the presence of speed cameras, rather like patrol cars, makes drivers acutely conscious of their speed and aware of their responsibilities. Home Office research that was undertaken some years ago showed that there was a reduction of 28 per cent in injury crashes at speed camera sites. As we shall hear in the coming months, the results in the pilot areas have been encouraging.
The Bill stipulates that the Secretary of State may determine the whole or part of the sums so raised. Accordingly, I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. First, what proportion of funds collected will go to the appropriate authority? I realise that he may not be in a position to give precise figures tonight, but it would at least be helpful to have an indication, such as two-thirds or one-half. It seems terrible that having gained this important victory it is frittered away.
Secondly, can it be established beyond doubt that such sums will be ring-fenced and that chief constables and police authorities are obliged to spend it specifically and only on purchasing more cameras, film and anything else to do with speed limit enforcement rather than, say, creating more police jobs or bobbies on the beat through creative accounting.
Finally, bearing in mind the importance of this initiative, can the Minister confirm that the Government will undertake rigorous monitoring of the new arrangements? Does he agree that there should be clearly designated and regular evaluations and progress reports, and that those should be presented to Parliament?
In 1999, 3,243 of our citizens were killed as a result of road accidents and some 39,000 seriously injured. It would undoubtedly be erring on the side of caution and fairness to say that at least a third of those involved speeding as a major factor. It is not enough to claim, as some do, that we have one of the best safety records in Europe. Given the standard of driving in most parts of Europe, that is a pretty hollow claim.

377
We owe it to those who have suffered and to the generations to come to begin to change this antisocial attitude now. The Bill will at least give us the critical tool to enable us to start on what is a mammoth task.
6.2 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, before addressing the problems of inappropriate speeds on our roads, which will be my main contribution to this Second Reading today, I should like to mention a couple of other concerns in the Bill as it currently stands.
Your Lordships may not realise that there is a very profitable trade in trailers and that the component parts of some trailers are lucrative and expensive. Consequently, although a part of the Bill deals with the illegal acquisition and disposal of motor vehicles, perhaps trailers should also be included.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I should also like to draw attention to the fact that the Bill fails to deal with premises which, for whatever reason, are outside the regulatory system but are in the business of motor salvage. All premises that are suspected—I repeat the word "suspected"—of being used for motor salvage should be subject to scrutiny, and the right of entry should be conferred upon a police officer to visit such a site.
Most of us have been driving along a road only to be overtaken by somebody who is exceeding the posted speed limit and suddenly brakes because the driver has seen a Gatso speed camera. Maurice Gatsonides cannot have appreciated the benefits his invention was to confer on road users. He was, indeed, caught speeding by his own device some years ago.
Many people regard speed cameras as a hindrance to their progress. Their impatience seems to confer on them the right to overtake on the left or right and, if it was possible, over the top of a vehicle. But it is fair to say that since the inception of traffic cameras, the prime objective has been to reduce collisions, particularly those in which people are either killed or seriously injured. Across London, the current level of accident reduction in the vicinity of camera sites—both speed cameras and red lights—is approximately 11 per cent, but that figure can be improved upon. The aim is for a 15 per cent reduction over a two-year period; 25 per cent over five years and a target of 40 per cent by 2010. That will require a concerted effort by all agencies involved, including the police, courts and local authorities.
The Bill has many facets and seeks to address problems which have existed for some years. I am delighted that it is before us today. The Bill will allow police services, together with their working partners, to put forward business cases to "net off" fines attracted by camera enforcement and to put the money into clearly defined casualty reduction policing projects. All publicity is geared to changing driver behaviour by making it clear that the most successful safety cameras will be the ones that detect no driver because everyone is driving at or below the speed limit.
378
Some noble Lords will be familiar with the Victoria initiative whereby that Australian state followed the principles of education, engineering, enforcement and evaluation and focused on driving behaviour and attitudes in areas known to account for high numbers of casualties. My wife spent a few weeks in Australia last year visiting friends and relations and, on her return, remarked that in Victoria and New South Wales, where she visited, drivers rarely exceeded the speed limit even when miles away from habitation. The effect of that initiative has been to reduce deaths and serious injuries by a huge amount. The cost to the police, hospitals and society has also been reduced by a considerable amount. I am afraid that I disagree, to a certain extent, with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, regarding zero tolerance.
There are eight pilot schemes in this country, of which Essex is one, in which additional cameras have been used since April last year. Because Essex was, at that date, operating all of its cameras at full capacity, there has been only a modest reduction in fatal crashes and ones in which serious injuries are received. In other areas the reduction has been as high as 22 per cent in personal injury accidents and 42 per cent in accidents in which people were killed or seriously injured. So, the projects are working. It is relevant to report that in a public opinion survey in all of the pilot areas, 82 per cent of people questioned felt that cameras are there to encourage drivers to keep to the speed limits and not to punish them. It is interesting to note that in Victoria all motorists accept zero tolerance as a fact of life and admit that the benefits far outweigh previously held prejudices against speed cameras and that they therefore approve of their intention.
Lancashire Constabulary has, for some time, been seeking Treasury funding to mirror the Victoria initiative as a road safety project. I feel confident that when it is adequately funded, the savings, both financial and personal, will be considerable. At the same time, when the press see the savings to the health service and the lives saved as a result of the initiative, even they will agree that what is, in effect, zero tolerance works and should spread throughout the country. A form of hypothecation as outlined in the Bill is a start to that end. There are some who might say that that is a means of raising money for the Exchequer. But the additional finances will be ploughed back into accident reduction measures. In Essex, for example, prior to the pilot scheme, 17,500 offenders were able to be dealt with per year. But the funding available from fine revenue has seen that figure increase dramatically to 70,000 in the first nine months of the pilot, and overall speeds have dropped by up to eight miles per hour in some locations which, in the 30 to 40 mph restricted areas where most injury accidents occur, is encouraging. Few people exceed speed limits in Essex and are now quite familiar with the mobile units, which can detect errant motorists where they least expect it.
Most people admit that it will be impossible to stop collisions but, if those collisions occur at a lower speed than before, the severity of injuries will reduce. In addition, if speeds are reduced, the rural roads will

379
become safer for people to move about on foot, bicycle and horseback. I read in a newspaper of disapproval of the proposed disqualification of anybody going faster than 85 mph on a motorway. The RAC, on the same matter, correctly pointed out that motorways are the safest roads in this country and that cars are much safer than previously. I would suggest that the results of a crash at 85 mph are considerably worse than those of a crash at 70 mph. While cars may be safer, drivers have not evolved at the same rate as cars and, on a motorway, follow too close to the vehicle in front and do not look far enough ahead of their vehicle to be able to avoid collisions.
The RAC and some other motoring organisations believe that more effort should be put into advanced driver training. That is all well and good, but the wider use of speed cameras will reduce the opportunity for those drivers who wish to exceed the speed limits because they will be held up by more and more drivers obeying them. We should not forget, however, that speed limits are imposed for safety reasons and, while some may be due for investigation and alteration, with better enforcement the choice of the irresponsible motorist to drive dangerously will be removed.
I should like to quote a paragraph from an article in today's Daily Mail by Simon Heifer. He wrote:
"Despite our having the lowest rate of road traffic accidents in Europe, the Government wishes to cut it still further".
I wonder how many relations of people killed on our roads he has spoken to. I have attended two fatal accidents and spoken to the relations. Understandably, they are not happy people. I doubt whether they would question any government seeking to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. Perhaps he wants statistics to worsen so that he can then blame someone.
Because of the perceived importance of catching muggers and burglars, chief police officers have decided, in their wisdom, that traffic officers are unimportant and are not front-line police. But it is the traffic officers who have to deal with the consequences of crashes; who have to investigate those which cause deaths; and who, through their enforcement of the legislation can save lives. I have been on traffic patrol when a driver was stopped at 3.30 a.m. on a motorway. She was driving perfectly in lane one but was stopped because of the improper use of high intensity rear lights. The driver turned out to be almost two times over the drink-drive limit. Could she have caused a crash a mile or so further on? Could she have fallen asleep and killed herself? We will never know because she was stopped.
Speed enforcement cameras are here to stay and, with well chosen siting and the additional funding proposed, they will be a means of saving people from death and injury and will save the NHS the financial burden currently imposed by victims of road crashes.
Finally, I should like to recall the experience of a friend who lives on a bend in a small village embracing a 30 mph limit. She saw someone driving well in excess of that limit, and so extended three fingers to indicate
380
the 30 mph limit. The driver then extended two fingers. I wonder whether it was to do with the proposed 20 mph limit.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Ministers who are opening and closing the debate and other noble Lords will not be surprsed to learn that I support the main proposals in the Bill. In recent years, I have spoken in several debates on car crime and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Government are doing what I have been advocating.
I introduced a debate when I was successful in a ballot on 31st March 1999. In order to crystallise my views, which I expressed then and which continue now, I can do no better than quote from what I said
"Another approach to reducing thefts exists in the scrap metal and vehicle salvage trades. Here I ask the Government to do more, as legislation will probably be needed. Of course, crooks remove identity marks, such as engine and chassis numbers, if it suits them. Vehicles are twinned by them or cloned with legitimate vehicles. Older vehicles near the end of their lives are welcome prey to crooks who can cannibalise them and use parts to construct supposed second-hand vehicles for sale, which are often extremely unsafe on the roads".—[Official Report, 31/3/99; col. 444.)
I referred to safety because I regard it, besides the reduction of fraud, as an important factor. That the Government are now legislating on the motor salvage and scrap metal industries, and legislating to tighten up procedures on registration plates is good news, especially for me, as that quotation from 1999 makes extremely clear.
There might be criticism that the Bill will lead to more regulation and paperwork. When as regards other issues complaints are made that there is too much regulation, I usually agree. But the salvage trades have for too long been tempting targets to crooks and unscrupulous dealers and it is high time that regulation made it much more difficult for them to operate.
The Bill also recognises the need for keeping records, in particular on the destruction of vehicles. I am confining my remarks to that part of the Bill which is concerned with trafficking in motor vehicles and I am doing so in the interests of brevity. In my debate in March 1999, besides theft of vehicles I drew attention to theft from vehicles, including breaking in and causing damage. I made the same remarks in my previous debate on 9th February 1998.
There is nothing in the Bill about theft from vehicles. It is confined to theft connected with the trafficking in vehicles or vehicle parts. I am sorry that theft from vehicles is not covered because the United Kingdom has one of the worst, if not the worst, record in Europe for theft from cars. Do the Government consider that the present situation and law are adequate? Unfortunately, as the police have pointed out from time to time, young offenders go through the courts because they are too young to be punished. In fact, the police have described some courtroom doors as "the rotating doors" used by young offenders who cannot resist stealing from cars. The thefts are usually of personal possessions and normally involve breaking

381
locks and smashing windows. Are the Government planning separate legislation to deal with that form of crime?
The provisions relating to registration plates will need careful examination, no doubt in Committee. They may need strengthening in order to reduce the possibilities of fraud. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux is speaking in the debate because he is still chairman of an organisation called European Secure Vehicle Alliance. Its membership included British police and in recent years it has put forward good suggestions in line with those on motor salvage, which appear in the Bill.
An important factor is the safety of the public. Crooked operators can, for example, invisibly join the undamaged halves of two cars and so create an apparently "fresh" vehicle without blemish. When sold on the second-hand market, such a car could become a death trap. For example, it is unlikely to be capable of withstanding minor accidents or even normal use on bumpy roads. We must hope that the Bill will reduce fraud and at the same time improve safety on the roads.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, first, I declare an interest in the Bill. As my noble friend said, I have served as chairman of European Secure Vehicle Alliance, which is an associate parliamentary group and a non-profit-making company limited by guarantee since its formation in 1992. There is no one single "magic bullet" which will bring about a sustained reduction in vehicle crime. There is a requirement for both "top down" contributions from government as well as "bottom up" approaches from local community safety partnerships, while also recognising the contributions made by vehicle manufacturers, insurers and the security industry.
The Bill is widely welcomed by all those who share an interest in vehicle crime reduction and reflects a great deal of effort by government, police and their partners over much of the past decade to highlight several of the most obvious shortcomings in our legislation. However, it will be valuable to explore whether the Bill can be further strengthened as a result of our examination. I should like to highlight a few issues for further consideration. The terms of reference and monitoring of vehicle salvage focus primarily on written-off vehicles that have been comprehensively insured. Self-insured vehicles—for example, often those owned by major fleets and vehicle rental companies—and also third-party only insured vehicles will not automatically fall within the proposed management and control procedures. What progress can we make in addressing that matter?
As we begin to target more effectively the illegal motor salvage dealers and repairers, what steps can we take to reduce the likelihood that they simply transfer their operations offshore, for example to Ireland, and take advantage of our relatively lax import and export regulatory systems?
382
As to the proposals to deal with vehicle registration plate manufacture and distribution in Part 2 of the Bill, we shall need to consider amendments which recognise offences associated with deception by the purchaser and possible collusion by the vendor as regards an unlawful transaction over a set of number plates. The purchaser of plates will be expected to produce documents such as the vehicle's registration details and a driving licence, which of course should be genuine.
The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill refer to a potential 10 per cent reduction in the number of motor vehicle thefts, which, if achieved, will still be equivalent to less than a 2 per cent decrease in overall vehicle crime. While that is undoubtedly most welcome, I should like to focus the remainder of my remarks on approaches that could deliver even more significant results. Vehicle crime is very much a "young person's crime". Two-thirds of offenders are under 21 years of age. ESVA is determined to find ways positively to channel young people's interest in and enthusiasm for becoming road users on both two and four wheels.
I am delighted to report that tomorrow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I will accompany my noble friend Lord Howe who, in his capacity as patron, has invited us to visit the SKIDZ motor project in High Wycombe. That serves as a fine example of a community-based project that aims to reduce vehicle crime, road accidents and social exclusion. The project also aims, during school hours, to serve as a bridging point between schools, FE colleges and employment in the vehicle trade for key stage 4 pupils aged 15 and 16 years who seek a more vocationally-based curriculum. In the evenings, weekends and during school holidays the project also runs programmes which are open to all community members who are interested in learning more about vehicles both in practical and safe riding contexts.
Clearly, this type of project is capable of tackling the roots of educational disaffection and failure which can lead to crime and other antisocial behaviour. I understand that we shall also receive a copy of some independent research carried out by the local Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, generously funded by Thames Valley Police Community Safety Trust, which offers a positive endorsement of this work.
ESVA has now developed a strong network of motor projects. It has applied for National Lottery Charities Board funding to establish a national network of starter motor projects. The aim is to help establish such projects in all 370 community safety partnerships in England and Wales. I also recommend that we support a more strategic approach to vehicle crime at both national and community level which examines the broad context within which vehicle crime and burglary—often referred to together as volume crime—are tackled.
Volume crime involves theft of property and has two key characteristics which in themselves offer an insight into its reduction. First, there needs to be a market for

383
the stolen property, be it vehicles, components or items stolen from vehicles and houses, which generates cash for the thief. Therefore, we must aim to identify and remove the handlers who are prepared to buy such stolen property and highlight to all members of the general public the inevitable consequence of purchasing a "too good to be true" bargain; namely, that it fuels volume crime. Such strategies are being developed by Kent and West Mercia Police and warrant our support.
Secondly, the nature of volume crime is unsurprisingly typical in that it follows the 80:20 rule, by which I mean that prolific offenders account for a disproportionately high level of offences. Often such offenders are also addicted to drugs. We shall have a greater impact on all-volume crime if we can both identify the prolific offenders and find effective ways to reduce their offending behaviour.
While there are some technical, almost esoteric, measures that can play a part in reducing vehicle crime, as detailed in this Bill, we must also continue to recognise and tackle some of the more pervasive problems within our society which manifest themselves in vehicle crime as well as many other categories of crime. I wish the Bill all success.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I particularly welcome Clause 38 which is concerned with speed cameras. My noble friend Lord Simon quoted some statistics from one trial in Essex. I should like to quote a similar trial in Northamptonshire. I understand that the number of people killed in road accidents reduced from 76 in 1999 to 55 in the following year, and the average speed of motorists fell by 13 per cent. Overall, there was a 40 per cent fall in deaths and serious injuries. I appreciate that that was a trial conducted in only eight different locations. However, that must be a major step towards achieving the Government's road casualty targets by 2010: a 40 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injury; a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed and seriously injured; and a 10 per cent reduction in the number of people slightly injured. I am pleased that this legislation is likely to mean that that can be mirrored all over the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to the need to ensure that speed limits are observed. I welcome the review of penalties that is currently taking place. However, I do not regard those penalties as being any different from those imposed on people who cause pollution, shoplift and commit fraud. One must balance the views of the victims and society.
About a century ago W S Gilbert said that one should let the punishment fit the crime. I believe that zero tolerance comes into it. Although they are strong words, I believe they mean that the equipment used to measure speed, or the amount of alcohol in an individual's breath, has become steadily more accurate over the years. Many motoring organisations and some parts of the press appear to believe that because
384
accuracy has increased the tolerance should remain to reflect the reduced accuracy; in other words, to drive at 85 miles an hour in an area subject to a speed limit of 70 miles an hour is all right because 20 years ago one could not measure speed to within 15 miles an hour and there was some doubt about it. Now it is quite clear that you can measure 30 miles per hour, so why should not 30 miles per hour be like that? If you are over 31 miles per hour, the answer is to drive at 29, or whatever.
In welcoming the Bill I have a few questions for the Minister, on which I am sure he will have some interesting comments. First, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, how much of the fines from the speed cameras will be payable to public authorities? It is terribly important that the authorities, be they local authorities or police, get the money necessary to do the work, rather than being told by the Treasury, "Well, yes, we will give you some of it, but you have got to pay the other half yourself". That will not spread the system over the country in the way that it should be. The provision should cover the protection and detection, as the Bill states, as well as the enforcement. The authorities need to welcome this legislation with open arms and get on and do it. The Treasury has been generous in this matter—I cannot say for a change because it is the first time—and that is very welcome.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked whether some of the payments made in relation to driver crime and speeding could be used for educational purposes? It would be very good if some of it could be allocated to that.
My second group of questions relate to the list of offences in Clause 38(2). They join the general family of speeding and going through red lights. This is an excellent list but I wonder whether it would be possible to add one or two more items—for example, an (f), (g), (h), and (i)—which would cover yellow box offences. As noble Lords have heard, and spoken about many times in your Lordships' House especially in the previous Transport Act, yellow box offences cause serious irritation to drivers who comply with them, and, it could be argued, there is the consequent risk of bad driving. But they also delay buses in bus lanes. So my second category of additions to the Bill would be what one might call "bus lane offences", including parking in them and driving in them if one is not driving a bus.
The Government's 10-year transport plan encourages the use of buses. As the Government admit, if buses do not provide a superior service to sitting in one's air-conditioned car, not many people will use them. Therefore, it is very important that, if possible, the list of offences which can be caught by these speed cameras should include both yellow boxes and bus lane offences.
Finally, in that subsection there are five offences listed. I have probably suggested more than two, but whatever it is, I hope that, as experience in the implementation of the clause is gained, the Government will find and feel that other offences can be added to the list of offences which justify some

385
hypothecation. So I should like to propose to the Minister that there is a catch-all at the end of the clause which allows the Government to introduce by regulation, without the need of primary legislation, any other good ideas that come up in the course of the initial years of the operation of the Bill. With those few questions I warmly support the Bill and wish it well.
6.34 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill and explaining its purpose. I support the Government's efforts to deal with the problem of vehicle crime. I intend to make some general observations and then articulate particular concerns with regard to the effectiveness of Part 2.
On the general points, there are various ways to reduce vehicle crime. Immobilising a vehicle is an obvious one. Modern security systems for vehicles work on the engine's electronic brain. That is very effective and I believe it will become mandatory in due course. But I am cautious about a compulsory retrofit because a retrofit is far more easily overcome, can be unreliable and is expensive. I believe we should move rapidly to compulsory original fit of immobilisers for all new vehicles.
I turn to the problem of stolen vehicles being exported. I understand we already have the capability to X-ray commercial vehicle containers and trailers. We have managed to discover smuggled cigarettes. So I can see no reason why we cannot detect vehicles being illegally exported. Perhaps we need an amendment to make it compulsory to note the details on the manifest of vehicles being exported.
The changes in the Bill will impact upon the work of the DVLA and, in particular, its employment levels. The registration of number plate suppliers will undoubtedly provide a welcome increase in work for the DVLA.
I should like to refer to a progress report on the electronic delivery of government services, and particularly the contribution from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It states:
"Registration and licensing of vehicles will be available via the telephones (and online). A pilot available for licensing business vehicles aged less than three years old".
That is not very encouraging. The problem will come in about three years' time when the DVLA, if it is not working completely electronically online for those that have the facilities, will be in a very embarrassing position because it will effectively be in the Stone Age compared to the rest of industry.
The DVLA has a major part to play. Information is obviously the key to enforcement. In due course I expect to see the granting of MoT certificates and insurance certificates notified to the DVLA electronically. The Bill goes some way towards doing that. But, if we gave the DVLA our bank details together with suitable instructions, we could get our tax discs sent to us in the post automatically without the problem of us accidentally forgetting to tax our vehicles.
386
I also believe that the MoT station should notify the DVLA electronically the moment it grants a certificate to a vehicle. The customer's bill should show that the vehicle has been granted a certificate; but the actual certificate should be issued by the DVLA to the registered keeper. That could have some benefit.
During the passage of the Transport Act, I moved an amendment for MoT discs to be on the windscreen next to the tax disc to make it easier to see whether a vehicle was properly tested. I shall be pursuing that issue again.
One advantage of having MoT discs and certificates issued by the DVLA is that the DVLA could rapidly change the design to deal with any problems of counterfeit certificates.
Noble Lords will be aware of the ability to have automatic number plate reading—ANPR. It is a little "big brother", but it has yielded spectacular security results in the City. Noble Lords have already spoken about the problem of illegal fonts and misleading spacing. That will obviously create difficulties for ANPR.
Part 2 of the Bill, on the regulation of registration plate suppliers, will not help much. I shall explain why in greater detail later. However, I believe that inspection of the number plate should be included in the MoT test. The Minister could easily alter the MoT regulations to make that part of the test.
In his opening comments the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned commercial vehicle trailers. I was worried that the noble Viscount would make my speech for me. There is a problem with commercial vehicle trailers. Currently, they are not registered on the computer at the DVLA. They are extremely expensive pieces of equipment, some of which can cost more than £50,000. They are registered on the operator's licence and on the Vehicle Inspectorate database.
My noble friend Lord Cope referred to the problem of number plates on the back of a caravan. I am not suggesting that the trailer display a separate number plate on the rear. I suggest that we have a vehicle registration number plate mounted next to the plate on the goods vehicle that indicates the capacity. It should be possible to have the same prefix for a fleet of vehicles. That would have some attractions for the operator.
I welcome Part 1 of the Bill. It is necessary to destroy redundant or unusable vehicle identities as soon as possible. The Statutory Off Road Notification system—SORN—has been in operation for some time. I assume that it has been successful. What consideration is the Minister giving to closing down the registration numbers that are no longer in current use, for which he has no SORN and no recorded vehicle activity? Apart from the fact that it removes some possibility of fraud, is there a possibility that the more attractive number plates could be sold?
I have some concern regarding the end-of-life vehicles directive from the EU. It may adversely affect the ability of private people to cannibalise and to

387
preserve vehicles. It may be that in 20 years we shall no longer appreciate the heritage we have now in terms of our older vehicles.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about the distress of finding that one's car has been stolen. In these cases often the car has to be returned to its original owner. I do not believe that Part 2 will have the desired effect. I think that its effect will be purely cosmetic because the controls can be easily circumvented. I understand the problem: at a high level, it is terrorism, armed robberies and selling stolen vehicles either by means of cloning or ringing. At a low level, it is temporarily fitting a false number plate in order to steal petrol from a garage, or some other relatively minor criminal activity. At a high level, there is much financial gain for the criminals. At a low level, it is largely a commercial problem: one cannot stop the kids from making a false plate that does not have to stand detailed police scrutiny. Can the Minister say whether a private person will still be allowed to manufacture his own number plates or will it be necessary to buy them from a registered dealer?
I have concern regarding the vehicle identity number on the number plates. The difficulty at the moment for an unsophisticated cloner is that he does not know the vehicle identity number of the vehicle to be cloned. When his vehicle is investigated by the police, it is easy to see that the VIN and registration number do not match. It is possible to find the VIN from hire purchase investigations. Perhaps we should consider whether HPI would tell you only if you had the correct VIN but not what the VIN should be for that particular registration number.
I turn to practical difficulties. Presumably, when a customer wants a number plate manufactured, he will need the logbook to prove his entitlement to it. The logbook ideally should be kept at home; it should not be kept in the car. If the car is stolen complete with the logbook, it is very easy to sell.,
How will the registration of suppliers of number plates stop plates going astray? What will happen if the young shop assistant takes a few plates and the necessary numbers home? Perhaps the Minister will go for serial numbers for each plate. That will not be a problem because all one need do to account for that serial number is to fill in the register with details of a customer who came in six months previously. The materials used for making number plates are not unusual—a sheet of perspex and a little piece of plastic. The really bad guys will simply steal a number plate from another vehicle, perhaps from an airport, and replace the stolen plate with another one. I pity the motorist who will report his number plate stolen—as he should as an honest citizen—because be will be regularly stopped by the police.
It is not clear how keeping records at thousands of outlets will help. The criminal could buy the number plate a long distance from where he intends to use it. Will the DVLA be notified of every number plate manufactured? My estimation is that about 15,000 number plates are made every day. I cannot see how these proposals will be effective. There are some other
388
solutions. In Sweden, one central location is used for manufacturing number plates. The only difficulty is that that would be an expensive system. It would still be possible to steal the plates. If enough financial reward or incentive exists for the criminal, the plates can still be forged. Many countries include the tax with the number plates. Can the Minister assure the House that there is no intention behind these changes to move to a situation where the tax is included with the number plate? Does the Bill give the Minister power to do that?
We could become very hi-tech and have "smart" plates that interface with the vehicle's immobiliser system. The snag is that that would be extremely expensive and that serious criminals could overcome it. There is also the problem of accidental damage.
I have a serious concern about the 28-day limit for lack of trading by the number plate supplier. It would not be a problem if one was a number plate manufacturer in Barnet, but what about the motor spares shop in the Western Isles where it may be two months before a number plate is sold, and in the mean time that shop loses its registration?
Would noble Lords care to wager as to whether I could obtain a number plate for one of their vehicles once the Bill has come into operation? To stay within the law, I would make sure it was a number plate that was defaced in some way. Currently, crooks in the motor trade—and there are a few—are no doubt stocking up with all the materials to make false number plates to last them for the next 10 or 15 years.
I apologise to the Minister and to the House for being so sceptical about the proposal for registering suppliers of number plates. I believe that it is a nice idea, but I do not think that it will work. Other provisions in the Bill are very welcome and will attract some helpful amendments.
6.50 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this has been an extremely well-informed debate. Ministers who put forward a Bill with such a general Title as "Vehicles (Crime) Bill" can expect Members, particularly those in this House, to see it as an opportunity to be constructive and imaginative in their amendments. We have had fair warning today that when we come to the Committee stage noble Lords will seek to broaden the terms of the Bill and will put forward some positive ideas of their own about vehicle crime.
In the main, the Bill has been welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that his approach was not to be churlish about the fact that some of the ideas in the Bill had been raised by him a year or two ago.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It just so happened that in that debate almost two years ago I was proposing

389
almost exactly what is now in the Bill concerning car salvage and the scrap metal industry. So I had to say that it would be churlish of me to object.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord never gives up on good ideas. We are most grateful.
Lord McNally: My Lords, originality is of course the ability to forget the source.
Even the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who although not churlish was tilted towards grudging, was reasonably constructive about the Bill while managing to try to land a few ideological blows. But I cannot really see the Bill as being yet another burden on business.
A number of points deserve a ministerial response. In its briefing the Local Government Association said that it did not want in this Bill specific legislation on abandoned vehicles but wanted to continue discussions with the police on the subject. If that is the way we go, I hope that there will be some urgency to those discussions. The abandonment of vehicles is a real problem. It puzzles me how, if one leaves one's car for half an hour, someone tows it away. Yet abandoned vehicles seem to be left for ever, with no one bothering about them, and if one rings the local authority it seems reluctant to take action. There is a serious side to the issue because abandoned vehicles then become subject to vandalism and a danger to children. I hope that the problem of abandoned vehicles is treated with urgency.
I hope that we do not become too frivolous about number plates. With the new fonts and with the making of names out of numbers, there is a danger of losing sight of the purpose of number plates. We need a more robust attitude to them. I was tempted to put down an amendment suggesting that all number plates should incorporate the European blue stars—just to guarantee the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, at the Committee stage.
My very good friends and colleagues, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, are not present for the debate. However, as the House will know, they are the champions of the two-wheeled motor vehicle—the leather brigade. There are problems associated with two-wheeled vehicles. It would be reassuring to them when they read Hansard if the Minister were to indicate concern about two-wheel vehicle crime as well as car theft.
My only association with vehicle crime was when I was a student living in a hall of residence at University College, London. One of the lads in the hall of residence lost his very elderly Lambretta. He received a quite handsome sum from his insurance company for the lost Lambretta. But he drew the curtains one morning and looked out and there was the Lambretta, outside the hall of residence. I have to tell the House that that Lambretta is now in the foundations of one of the newer buildings of University College, London. I do not know what happened to him. He is probably a High Court judge now.
390
More seriously, I thoroughly agreed with what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, had to say about the anti-social nature of speeding. There is too much association of macho, manly virtues with speeding and not enough realisation that when one is driving a car one is in charge of a lethal weapon and that it should be handled with commensurate responsibility. But it is also fair to congratulate the Government on the fall in road fatalities. It has come about through a combination of efforts—legislative measures, education and the response of manufacturers. Manufacturers have acted responsibly in making vehicles less prone to theft.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made some good points. She suggested that the Highway Code should encourage drivers to be aware of anti-theft measures. She also suggested that there should be more IT support for the police so that they can react more rapidly. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the export of stolen cars also bears examination. We are told that in some foreign parts one can almost custom order highly priced cars from countries such as Britain and have them delivered. There must be measures, including European cooperation, to counteract such crime.
The point made about hypothecation needs to be clarified. Whenever the Treasury appears to be generous, those not on the Government Benches will want to examine the small print very carefully indeed. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that hypothecation should include using the money for wider purposes than just speed cameras was a valid one. Furthermore, we on these Benches will certainly associate ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on amendments to include yellow boxes in bus lanes.
The Minister may recall that some months ago I told him that I had been to an electronics exhibition which was demonstrating devices that could be put in cars to warn about speed cameras and speed traps. In his reply to me he said that the Home Office was looking at the legality of such devices—looking with a hostile eye in that respect. Has there been any progress in the matter?
Perhaps I may return to the issue of speed. I see that the Conservatives are discussing increasing the speed limit on motorways to 85 miles an hour. I hope that the speed limit does not become a party political issue. It is more important to aim the enforcement of speed limits in areas where exceeding them can be highly dangerous. Most Members agree that very few drivers—with the exception of my father-in-law, who sticks to 41 miles per hour regardless of where he is driving—have never driven over the speed limit at some time. Indeed, even my father-in-law may have exceeded the limit in a 30 mile-per-hour zone. Nevertheless, politicians should be careful of implying that speed is not a factor in road accidents. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out that even on the safest of motorways, drivers are dangerous when they drive at very high speeds.

391
What has emerged most strongly from this debate is how constructive are Members from all sides of the House in their approach. For that reason, I believe that the Committee stage should prove to be both interesting and productive. I hope that we shall also be able to explore the points made by my noble friend Lady Scott. In her peroration she paid tribute to my wise advice—I was particularly taken by that—and, along with the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, pointed out that, if we are to make this strategy work well, along with legislation, we need to foster education and community involvement.
As I have said, we look forward to a constructive Committee stage on the basis of what has proved to be an extremely constructive Second Reading debate.
7.2 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I give the Bill a general welcome. I shall undertake two tasks this evening: first, I thank the Government for introducing this measure; secondly—and perhaps more important—I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on giving the Government the idea for it in the first place. He deserves credit for that and I hope, when the Minister winds up the debate, that he, too, will pay tribute to my noble friend.
Not unreasonably, the Government want us all to drive carefully, to keep to the speed limits and to obey the rules. However, I have to say that it is a pity that neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary have set a good example in this respect. The Prime Minister was driven along the bus lane of the M4 when he was late for a meeting. On another occasion, the Home Secretary was happy to be driven at over 100 miles an hour—again because he was late for a meeting. If the Government wish the public to stick to the law, they must ensure that they encourage their drivers to do the same.
As I have said, we welcome the Bill and we shall examine its detail closely when we come to the Committee stage. However, I was somewhat depressed when I read through Clause 1. I thought, "Oh God, more garbage in the drafting". In that clause we find that subsection (2)(b) states:
"wholly or mainly in the purchase of written-off vehicles".
Paragraph (c) states,
"wholly or mainly in the sale or purchase of motor vehicles".
We then reach paragraph (d), which states,
"wholly or mainly in activities falling within paragraphs (b) and (c)".
Yet again, we have a Bill which appears to have been drafted in the most verbose manner, containing too many clauses and excessively complicated language. As always, we shall have to spend time trying to arrange the Bill so that it makes sense and says what it intends to say.
We agree that registration will be important. However, we cannot gloss lightly over the fact that costs will attach to this new form of regulation. I am concerned not so much with the larger groups, but
392
with smaller garages and one-man bands. Plenty of people around the country work as mechanics; they work alone and sometimes operate out of the back of a van rather than from a premises. If they are "wholly or mainly" concerned with written-off vehicles or are wholly or partly involved in the recovery, re-use or sale of salvageable parts, they will need to register. It is extremely important that such operatives do register and thus are brought into the system, because the system will not work if people seek to avoid becoming involved in it on grounds of cost. We shall wish to probe the Government on the exact costs involved. How will local authorities enforce this measure? It will work only if it is generally accepted and those involved in the industry appreciate the point of being registered. We want them to want to be registered, for the benefit of their business.
As my noble friend Lord Cope pointed out, we are concerned also about the powers of entry. It seems rather bizarre that greater powers of entry are available for registered businesses than is the case for unregistered businesses.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, expressed concerns about hypothecation. We, too, have reservations about this. The Explanatory Notes to Clause 38 explain that the Secretary of State will be able,
"to fund the expenditure of public authorities relating to specific offences in connection with speeding and traffic signals. In particular the clause is intended to enable the Secretary of State to use receipts from fines imposed by criminal courts …and other sums paid to magistrates' courts, to fund particular schemes such as the installation and operation of speed cameras".
The point has already been made in the course of the debate that safety schemes should also be funded.
When the Bill was considered in the other place, the Minister, Mr Keith Hill, when questioned on hypothecation, was asked whether the Government would spend all the receipts. The Minister was not able to answer the question. He said:
"I am not in a position to say that there will be precise equality between revenue and expenditure at the end of a five-year period".
When he was asked why, he responded by saying:
"However, that would be a desirable outcome to which the Government are certainly working".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/01/01; col. 232.]
It would be most helpful if, in the course of his response this evening, the Minister could tell the House what further calculations the Government have completed since the debate in the other place. Do they still agree with the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place; namely, that it would be "a desirable outcome"?.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke of how the punishment should fit the crime. We agree entirely with that sentiment. However, there is a considerable variation in the punishments dealt by magistrates' courts. One is often surprised, when reading the newspapers, to see that quite serious offences are sometimes treated rather lightly, while other offences which appear less serious attract far higher fines or heavier penalties. If the law is to work properly, it has

393
to be applied more consistently. I shall be interested to know what the Government are doing as regards the advice being passed to magistrates on consistency when dealing with motoring offences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to several matters in her interesting speech. In particular she mentioned car parks. This is an important point. As someone who uses a railway station car park, I have to tell the House that they can be some of the worst car parks in this country. In the area where I live, to park one's car overnight in a railway station car park is almost to guarantee that it will be broken into. The car will not be stolen, but it will be broken into, the radio will be stolen and the car may be trashed. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, observed, when one's car is stolen, only one thing is worse than the fact of the theft; that is, when a kind person returns the car a month later after it has been thoroughly trashed. That is truly awful.
If the Government are serious about their transport policy, which seeks to encourage us to use trains, then railway station car parks must be examined. I know for a fact that, if I use the train to come to London, I cannot leave my car overnight in the railway station car park because the odds are that it will be broken into.
Much has been made of the use of speed cameras. The system has worked well and has been extremely successful in encouraging drivers to drive within the law. However, as a result of speaking to various people who have been photographed while speeding, I have discovered that it is almost impossible to secure a copy of the picture. If you say to the police, "I do not know if I was driving down that road on that day. I cannot remember. Can you send me a photograph?", one is told, "No, that is not possible. It is too expensive and too inconvenient". There should be a mechanism whereby people who receive a summons asking whether they were driving on a particular day—because sometimes a summons arrives four months later—can have access to the photograph.
Many noble Lords were concerned about abandoned vehicles. This is a big problem, particularly in the countryside. I have noticed them most when I have been driving around a corner in a country lane and suddenly there is an abandoned vehicle. It is extremely important that the Government continue their discussions with local authorities on this issue. I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress is being made in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he was not going to bring forward an amendment about the EU symbol on number plates. From looking at the House of Commons Hansard, it would appear that the Government plan that there will be an EU symbol on all new number plates from September this year. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether or not that is the case.
The question of police numbers raised concern. The Bill will place an extra burden on the police and it is disappointing that police numbers have fallen over the past two years.
394
Turning to the issue of number plates, my noble friend Lord Attlee made an extremely important point about commercial trailers, ordinary trailers, caravans and so on. He gave a figure of 15,000 number plates being made each day, which poses the question of whether the system will work. It is a huge number of number plates. We shall have the expertise of my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux at Committee stage. I was somewhat alarmed when my noble friend Lord Attlee spoke about the cloning of cars. I have only recently understood the concept of Dolly the sheep and now it seems that I have to move on to Dolly the car.
We are all moving on. If, 20 years ago, Steptoe and Son had ever thought that they would be called "motor vehicle dismantlers", they would probably have retired then and there.
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I find myself in a rather infrequent position—responding to a debate in which there has been universal approval for at least the main principles of the Bill. Most complaints have been about what is not in the Bill rather than what is. I appreciate the support of the House and the indications of commitment to the objectives of the Bill. Whether they have been expressed with the pride of paternity, as by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or with a certain twinge of cynicism, as by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I regard them as all positive and supportive.
I shall divide my remarks between the three main areas—salvage, number plates, and safety and speed cameras. Generally, noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite raised the question of regulation and cost. These propositions have been based on full consultation, not only with business in general, but specifically with the Federation of Small Businesses, the salvage trade associations, the police and the local authorities. We believe that they are sensible and proportionate regulations. In terms of cost, we do not believe that the estimates in the Explanatory Notes will be exceeded.
I do not need to deal with the principles of the Bill because they were broadly supported. I shall therefore attempt to deal with the detail. As to salvage, the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the question of vehicle identities and suggested that vehicles which were not insured would not receive an identity check. All vehicles which have been previously written off would be required to be submitted for a vehicle identity check should someone apply for new registration documents. That would apply also to those vehicles which were self-insured and to fleet cars.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, as to why VIC does not cover self-insured cars, such vehicles will be included by introducing a requirement for the registration documents to be surrendered together with a declaration that the vehicle has been sold as scrap.

395
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised the question of the regulation of the salvage industry and its relationship to the voluntary code applied by salvage companies which are members of trade associations—he is right, they form a relatively small proportion of the industry—and those which are not. The trade associations very strongly support the regulations as do many outside the trade associations. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, there are some dodgy operators in this field. Although there is a highly respectable element in the salvage trade, there are some dodgy operators who are unscrupulous and who, in effect, deal with cars which could be a threat to life and limb. They are the ones who operate ringing and cut-and-shut operations without proper safety precautions; they are the ones we are trying to catch. By and large, the regulations are accepted and supported by the majority in the trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, also asked about the involvement of insurance companies. I think I have largely answered that question. Representations to us suggest that this industry is questioning whether the regulations will push companies abroad. We have generally assessed the economic position of this trade as insufficient to generate the kind of legal profits which would lead to people going abroad—or to Scotland or Northern Ireland, where these regulations will not apply. In the long run, the end-of-life vehicle directive will require identification of all authorities which have the right to break and end the life of vehicles. Eventually, there will be identification across the whole of the European Union.
As to the question of the effectiveness of these registrations in terms of the right of inspection and the right of entry, this probably relates more to the issue of number plates than to the issue of salvage operators.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and my noble friend Lord Simon, both raised the issue of whether there was an inconsistency between the inspection of registered and unregistered number plate suppliers. The Bill will permit searches of unregistered premises only with a warrant, as would be the case in any other situation where a crime was suspected. Unregistered premises in which it is suspected that criminal activity is taking place, in that they are being used to operate in areas for which they should be registered, are covered by the general provisions. Registered operators will, in effect, have signed up to being inspected without a warrant when they register. That is why we need these provisions in the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, showed a suspiciously detailed knowledge of all the tricks of the trade in relation to number plates. He raised a number of points which even my detailed brief does not cover. Nevertheless, he rightly identified that there are a number of problems. He indicated that the system would, of itself, put further responsibilities on DVLA staff and the registration system. However, I take issue with him when he says that the progress towards electronic provisions via the DVLA are somewhat backward. In reality, progress towards electronic options for the DVLA is moving forward fairly rapidly
396
and will be complete within the next few years. A major project on electronic relicensing plus the computerisation of the MoT scheme will make major contributions to the effectiveness of operations on both number plate and licence checks by the DVLA.
The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, raised the question of what exactly are the offences when a number plate is erroneously handed over. He suggested that an additional offence might be created. The supplier will have a statutory duty to obtain information from the purchaser so as to verify that he is entitled to buy the number plates. If the supplier colludes with the purchaser, he commits an offence himself. A separate offence of effectively counterfeiting is not necessarily appropriate in this case. If the purchaser produces false documents, again, offences are created.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others asked what information we eventually intend to see or number plates. Clause 34 allows for additional information to be included on number plates. The precise information to be included will be prescribed by regulations after further consultation. It is envisaged at this stage that it could include, for example, a manufacturer's serial number, so as to combat illegal copying. This could be dealt with in the future by a bar code or microchip in the number plate. We shall return to the matter when we deal with the regulations under Clause 34.
Mischievously, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to aspects of the regulations regarding the nature of number plates. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the present manipulations and the use of obscure fonts are contrary to good enforcement. Therefore, we have brought forward regulations to make sure that people work to a standard font. There is also to be a bigger change in the nature of number plates: we have run out of numbers on the old system and, from September, there will be an entirely new system.
The allegation, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, gave credence, that the regulations will include provision for a compulsory EU sign, is erroneous. They will include the ability voluntarily to include the EU sign with the stars and the GB plate. However, it will not be mandatory and there is no such intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make it mandatory—whatever the noble Lord,:Lord McNally, may wish in his heart of hearts.
Perhaps I may move on to aspects that are not included in that part of the Bill, but which noble Lords may feel should be included. A recurring theme was that of abandoned cars. We recognise that they present a problem. Although they are not covered by the Bill, there are provisions for co-operation between the various authorities. We have attempted to ensure that the existing regulations in regard to abandoned and unlicensed vehicles bring together all the authorities so that we can tackle what is undoubtedly a growing problem in many of our towns and villages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on behalf of her leather-clad colleagues, raised the issue of motorcycles. An extension to the Bill's provision is not

397
required; motorcycles are covered. They will be regulated in relation to the salvage industry, the number plates provisions and so forth, just as other vehicles will be. As regards parking, we included further provisions on motorcycle parking in the Transport Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on the general need for more secure car parks, which have been shown to have a beneficial effect.
I am very pleased to receive the support of the House for the provisions on safety cameras, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and others. The pilot schemes that we are running on the funding of safety cameras have not yet been completed. However, as was indicated in statements by ACPO last week, the results so far are very encouraging. They indicate a substantial improvement as regards the number of fatalities and serious injuries. They show a major improvement in Strathclyde, of over 40 per cent; an improvement of over 30 per cent in Nottinghamshire; and an improvement of over 25 per cent in Lincolnshire. For some reason, the improvement in Essex is somewhat less. However, only one or two of the indicators are in single figures; all the others reveal an improvement of over 20 per cent. There is a clear indication that, with proper resources, speed cameras not only reduce speed but also reduce accidents and deaths.
Lord McNally: Before the Minister makes any jokes about Essex, I remind him that there are some delicate marginals there.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware that the Liberal Democrats were quite so worried.
As regards the early part of the Bill, a number of speakers asked for additional provisions relating to cameras. There was general praise for the Treasury's generosity and flexibility as regards hypothecation, which I very much share in these days before the Budget. I applaud the Chancellor's generosity in that respect. One has to recognise that it is not entirely elastic, and that there are restrictions on the degree of hypothecation. Some of the areas to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, suggested the money should be applied would be outwith the arrangements on hypothecation for the pilot schemes and the Bill's provisions. It would cover aspects of prevention, as well as of detection and enforcement; however, it would probably not cover the broader aspects, such as road safety education and so forth, to which the noble Baroness, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and others referred.
There are those who would like to add additional offences to this part of the Bill. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as regards bus lanes and box junctions. We included further provision on bus lanes in the Transport Bill a few months ago. But this Bill deals with vehicle crime and with safety and does not presently cover traffic management issues. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley that, once
398
bedded down, this system could in future be considered in terms of opportunities to expand the funding system to other areas such as those that have been identified.
There is wide support for the Bill throughout the House. The recognition that there are other aspects of road safety and of vehicle crime that the Government need to address—not necessarily in a legislative context—is shared by the Government. We have had a good Second Reading debate. I am sure that some of these matters will be followed up in Committee. My noble friend Lord Bassam and I will do our best to deal with suggestions from noble Lords. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Health and Social Care Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2001
7.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach) rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 13th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember well the Terrorism Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 20th July last year. My noble friend Lord Bassam confirmed in a Written Answer earlier today that the Act will be brought into force next Monday, 19th February, replacing the current separate and temporary legislation on terrorism for Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The new Terrorism Act will deliver permanent United Kingdom-wide legislation, which the Government believe will be effective and proportionate to the threat that the United Kingdom faces—and may face—from all forms of terrorism.
Part II of the Act gives the Secretary of State power to proscribe organisations "concerned in terrorism" and it includes some specific offences related to the activities of a proscribed organisation. The proscription regime to be established by the new Act differs from the provision in existing legislation. In particular, the Act will apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom rather than be limited to Northern Ireland or Great Britain. In addition, the Act provides for the proscription of organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism, rather than just those concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
For the first time, the Act will enable a proscribed organisation, or any person affected by the proscription of an organisation, to make application to the Secretary of State for deproscription—at any time. If that application is refused, the Act provides for

399
an appeal to a new independent tribunal; namely, the proscribed organisations appeal commission. By virtue of Section 5(3) of the Act, the commission will consider any refusals to deproscribe in the light of judicial review principles. The Act also provides for further appeal from a decision of the commission on a question of law.
The Government are confident that these arrangements are sufficient to ensure an effective remedy is available to those concerned. Schedule 3 to the Act provides for the establishment of the commission. This will comprise members, including a chairman, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Each sitting of the commission will comprise three members, one of whom must hold, or have held, high judicial office.
The draft rules governing the commission procedures are the subject of our debate this evening. Perhaps I may briefly draw noble Lords' attention to the following provisions. First, under Rule 7, organisations or individuals will have 42 days within which to serve notice of an appeal on the commission. This deadline takes account of the fact that a proscribed organisation may be based overseas. However, in special circumstances, the commission may accept a notice of appeal after the due date.
Secondly, under Rule 9, the commission shall designate a person to conduct proceedings on behalf of an organisation making the appeal. Thirdly, where the commission considers it necessary, appeals may be heard in the absence of the appellant and his representative (Rule 21). That will be necessary mainly where the Secretary of State has objected to disclosure of certain material to the appellant. In such cases, the Attorney-General will, under Rule 10, appoint a "special advocate" to represent the interests of the appellant. This is in order to protect the rights of the appellant, without compromising any sensitive information that might form part of the Secretary of State's opposition to the appeal.
The special advocate represents the interests of the appellant by making submissions to the commission in any proceedings from which the appellant or his representative are excluded; cross-examining witnesses in any such proceedings; making submissions to the commission in any part of the proceedings from which the appellant and his representative are not excluded at the invitation of the commission; and making written submissions to the commission.
Under Rule 14, the commission will have the power to consolidate or hear together two or more appeals where the same questions of law or fact arise or it is otherwise desirable. This is to prevent the possibility of a number of separate but essentially similar appeals being mounted at the same time by persons affected by the proscription of an organisation.
In my view these rules are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 13th December 2000 be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord McNally: My Lords, these Benches give support to the draft rules now before us, especially because their application is UK-wide. We have long believed that the partitioning of anti-terrorism measures between various parties of the United Kingdom is unhealthy. It is only right that our citizens should be treated by a common law. It is also right that we build protection into our law, even for those who would appear to be seeking to destroy or damage our society. Indeed, that is a mark of a civilised society. We discussed various guarantees last week for those accused of terrorism. I should have thought that a man from Mars might be amazed that Parliament should take such meticulous care in protecting the rights of the accused, especially when that person could be part of an organisation that is actually trying to bring down the state. As I said, it is a mark of a free and democratic society that we put such provisions into our law.
I have but one concern with these measures. In dealing with wider international proscriptions it is important to get the balance right. Such powers should not be used simply because organisations or individuals in this country are doing things that regimes abroad do not like if those activities are perfectly legal in terms of the United Kingdom. For example, there are countries where the saying of rude things about the head of state or the head of government is a punishable offence, whereas that is not so in this country. There is a danger that we may become over-zealous in trying to curb organisations. However, we would not want the United Kingdom to become a safe haven for terrorists attacking countries abroad. I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck in the use of such powers; but we need to have that balance.
In Committee in another place, I noticed that questions were raised about the commission and its composition; indeed, questions that remain to be answered. Can the Minister say how soon this commission will be appointed and tell us when we shall know names? Further, can he explain the procedure whereby 10 of the members of the commission will be appointed by open competition and will not necessarily be legally qualified? Perhaps the noble Lord can expand a little on how the commission will be established, and tell us what kind of time-scale is involved.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we also support these draft rules. I can only echo the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the setting up of the commission.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their support. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, emphasised how important it is for a free society to ensure that elements of it who are perhaps the most unpopular—sometimes

401
for good reason—are protected, as is everyone else by the rule of law. That is what we have sought to do both in the Act and by way of these draft rules. We have tried to maintain the appropriate balance between protecting society and protecting the rights of even the most evil people.
As regards when the commission's membership will be announced, I am afraid that I shall have to resort to the words that noble Lords will have heard many times from this Dispatch Box and, I suspect, from many governments: the names of those sitting on the commission will be announced in due course. However—and more importantly for the moment—the way that the composition of the commission will be established in any given case is as follows. One member of a three-person tribunal (such tribunals will consist of three people) must either hold, or have held, high judicial office. That is the only requirement as far as concerns the three members.
It is the intention that there will also be one other legally-qualified person and one "specialist" member present at each hearing. As for the question of who would qualify as that specialist member—people are now applying to become members of the commission—I can tell noble Lords that the advertisement for such applications specifies that that person should have extensive experience in one or more of the following areas: first, political or social sciences or other relevant areas of legal academic study; secondly, the Armed Forces, police or national security services; and, thirdly, the Diplomatic or Home Civil Service. Of course, legally qualified applicants must be barristers or solicitors with at least seven years' standing on 1st November last year. I hope that those comments are helpful. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001
7.40 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order seeks to exclude activities such as the publication of newspapers from the definition of "political expenditure" under Part IX of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, while, at the same time, ensuring that the principles of accountability and transparency are properly applied in relation to political donations and expenditure by companies.
I should like briefly to remind noble Lords of the background to this draft order. The Neill committee's
402
report on the funding of UK political parties recommended that any company intending to make a donation to a political party or organisation should be required to have the prior authority of its shareholders. The Government accepted this recommendation, and—with the blessing of the Neill committee—proposed both that the requirement should be extended to cover political expenditure by companies and that the disclosure requirements under the Companies Act 1985 should be amended to reflect the committee's recommendations.
At the same time, we are conscious that some companies carry on business activities which may, by their very nature, involve the publication or dissemination of material which seeks to influence the views of members of the public; journalism is an obvious example. It was, of course, not our intention that the carrying on of activities such as the publication of newspapers should be considered as incurring "political expenditure"; for that reason, the Government tabled an amendment at Third Reading to create an order-making power under Part IX of the Act to allow Parliament to exempt such activities from the requirement for shareholder authorisation.
May I emphasise that the order-making power under Part IX of the Political Parties Act does not extend to donations to political parties and organisations. Companies which may enjoy the benefits of the exemption will therefore remain subject to the full requirements of the Act in relation to such donations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th January be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome the order just in time for the Prime Minister to announce the next general election. The main reason we welcome the order is that it will allow companies that own newspapers to be exempted from any possibility of having to apply for shareholder authorisation for those newspapers to state that they think that a particular party should win the next general election. As we consider that most newspapers are likely to state that the Conservative Party should win the next general election, we certainly welcome the order. Although the Minister was not involved in the legislation we are discussing, I am sure that he will have heard that the Government cherry-picked the Neill recommendations. Therefore we look forward to the Chancellor in the forthcoming budget—the Government having dodged the issue when the legislation went through this House—giving us tax relief on political donations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as even the Guardian is usually "iffy" and wishy-washy about whether it should vote Liberal Democrat at general elections, we welcome the measure with absolute neutrality.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate the House on its extremely fast and, I think, proportionate scrutiny of the order. The draft

403
order reflects two equally important principles in our public and political life: the importance of transparency and proper accountability in relation to the funding of political parties and election and referendum campaigns, and the freedom of the press. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that
404
both principles should be properly applied in this country. That is the purpose of the draft order; for that reason, I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Race Equality
  Race Equality
  Terrorism Act 2000
  Terrorism Act 2000
  Criminal Records Bureau: Fees
  Criminal Records Bureau: Fees
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Strategic Rail Authority
  Rail Freight Grants
  Rail Freight Grants
  London Underground: Escalator Replacement
  London Underground: Escalator Replacement
  London Underground: Delays to Trains
  London Underground: Delays to Trains
  Bond Street Underground Station: Line Interchange
  Bond Street Underground Station: Line Interchange
  NATS: Oceanic Sector Services
  NATS: Oceanic Sector Services
  Local Authority Publicity
  Local Authority Publicity
  Variant CJD: Compensation Scheme
  Variant CJD: Compensation Scheme
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Expenditure Limits
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Expenditure Limits
  Overseas Workers: Wages
  Overseas Workers: Wages
  Prison Education and Training
  Prison Education and Training
  ECGD: Operating Policy
  ECGD: Operating Policy
  MAFF: Regulatory Burden
  MAFF: Regulatory Burden
  Private Bills and Human Rights Legislation
  Private Bills and Human Rights Legislation
  Law Officers' Departments: Expenditure Limits
  Law Officers' Departments: Expenditure Limits
  War Widow's Pension
  War Widow's Pension