Sitting of 24 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [145474]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those acting in their support provide an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland, as recent successes against terrorism demonstrate. I know that the police service will continue to do so as the changes arising from the Patten report are implemented. I should like to add on a personal basis that they are embracing those changes with typical resilience and professionalism. It has been my great privilege to support them, including their Chief Constable, in their valiant work.
    Mr. Brazier: In view of the deadlock in the negotiations and the uncertain—to say the least—security position, will the Secretary of State, as his last official action in the Chamber, do a little more to lift the shadow from that brave, impartial and disciplined service still known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
    Mr. Mandelson: The Government's aim throughout this process is to develop a modern police service in Northern Ireland that is both effective and representative of the community it serves, and that commands the widespread support and confidence that it needs to do its job effectively. The changes being implemented will, in the Government's view, achieve that. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the radical vision expressed by Patten, which, in our view, will contribute as much, if not more than anything else, to long-term peace and stability for all the people in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I say to my right hon. Friend that very many people in both communities in Northern Ireland will view his statement today with deep dismay and regret? He has
    908
    always given of his best in ensuring the interests of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland and he will be sorely missed.
    On the issue of police reform, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I for one have every trust in the sheer professionalism of Ronnie Flanagan and his senior officers in implementing the necessary reform? In him and Commissioner Pat Byrne we have two very high-ranking and extremely competent police officers who will do their best to take forward the peace process.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. What no one should underestimate is the radical transformation that is already under way in policing in Northern Ireland. The Patten report is no longer just theory; it is becoming a daily reality. With the police ombudsman in place, the oversight commissioner at work, new district commanders appointed, the district command structure being put in place, a new recruitment agency to recruit new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland almost in place, the severance scheme and the restructuring of headquarters, many changes are taking place now. That is why we have to resolve any remaining political difficulties and continue firmly with the tasks that we have set ourselves in bringing about the much-needed changes in policing in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Trimble: May I first thank the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done in Northern Ireland in the past year or so, and tell him that many people appreciate the efforts that he has made? I say that although, as he knows, there are various issues on which we have disagreed, particularly policing. The proposals particularly to change the name of the RUC and the failure to recognise the service and the sacrifice of RUC members have caused very deep hurt within the community as a whole. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the police force is being undermined by the continuing uncertainty about particular aspects of policing.
    Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that the sooner we have a closure on the issue the better; and that that requires nationalists themselves now to take up their responsibility for society, as has been implicit in the agreement and in everything that it contained? Has not the time long since passed for nationalists to take their responsibilities and to support the police service, so that it can continue the honourable traditions of the RUC?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial generous remarks.
    The Government are conscious, and I have been only too conscious, that some of the changes are painful for some people in Northern Ireland. I can say firmly and sincerely that the sacrifices that have been made by the RUC will never be forgotten. The award of the George Cross to the RUC by Her Majesty the Queen is a fitting tribute, as will be the creation of the RUC GC Foundation in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
    I echo the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is incumbent on all sections of society to move forward in support of the police service and to encourage young men

    909
    and women right across the community, in both traditions, to become part of this unique opportunity for policing in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never sought to block the tremendous efforts that he and others have made to achieve a more inclusive police service in Northern Ireland? Will he also accept my congratulations on the tremendous work that he has done with and for the police, to ensure that the goal of a more inclusive force will one day be realised?
    Mr. Mandelson: Certainly, one of the Government's proudest achievements—one of my own personal proudest achievements has been the contribution that I made in introducing it—has been the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which is leading to the creation of the new police service. The process of establishing the new service has begun and must continue. One cannot stop such a transformation in midstream. To do so would leave the police in Northern Ireland in limbo, with all the implications that that entails.
    We must press on, but to do so wholly successfully requires the support and active participation of the political and community representatives of both traditions. If we can secure that, it will be the most signal step forward in the transformation of Northern Ireland from the era of war and terrorism to the era of peace that it wishes now to embrace.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that his was the right decision—indeed, the only tenable decision—in the circumstances? As he leaves office, will he acknowledge that the police reforms are in real danger of being all pain and no gain, especially if the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Fein continue to refuse to recommend to young Catholic men and women that they join the new police force?
    Mr. Mandelson: The greatest, most important gain to be secured from this process of change and this new beginning in policing that we are seeking to create is the development of a police service that wins the trust and respect of both sides, allowing the police to operate effectively right across the community and to tackle crime at its root, with the active support of both sides of the community rather than with the hostility or the sullen acquiescence that we have seen in the past, allowing the RUC to transform itself from the counter-terrorist organisation that it has been into the community-based, partnership-based police service that we want for the future.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Eric Forth: When he expects decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland to begin. [145475]
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What undertakings by the Government remain to be fulfilled to enable verifiable total disarmament of terrorist weaponry. [145480]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Efforts are still continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible. For our part, the Government have met all our commitments, and continue to meet our commitments to take the steps necessary for full implementation of the agreement by June 2001.
    Mr. Forth: For how much longer are Ministers going to fool themselves and, what is worse, the British people, over decommissioning? For how much longer are they going to allow illegal weapons and substances to exist and be held in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ingram: We have not given up—it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps given up—on the process. That is not what the people of Northern Ireland want. They want all the efforts made over recent days, months and years, by this and previous Administrations, to succeed. This is a difficult process. We hope that, with the encouragement of everyone with good will, we can take it to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister's optimism is understandable, but does not he agree that the hope may be false, especially when senior people in the paramilitary organisations are reported in the media as saying that there will be no decommissioning? The people of Northern Ireland are ware of that, after the recent attacks on Ebrington barracks and Claudy police station. Is it possible that we have been listening to our own spin, and that the republicans have rumbled us?
    Mr. Ingram: The recent attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been attributed to the dissident republican movement, the Real IRA, as was yesterday's attack on Ebrington barracks. It is a matter not of believing spin but of looking at the hard reality and trying to find answers. No one said the task would be easy or without risks attached. That is the reality that we are dealing with. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know the mood in his constituency, which is for peace and for the removal of the past from Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us with a particular interest in Northern Ireland, and especially those who belong to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will greet with regret this morning's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? However, will he make it clear to the parties in Northern Ireland that they should redouble their efforts to achieve faster progress on all sides, and not use the Secretary of State's resignation as an excuse for further delay?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the sterling efforts and work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Select Committee has played an important role in exposing and examining a range of issues, and in helping the process in which we are involved. We need to move forward on the basis that the Government have set out but, more importantly, on the

    911
    basis set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what the people of Northern Ireland hold to and what they want to have delivered. We are determined to achieve that.
    Fiona Mactaggart: In view of the statement of the independent decommissioning commission that it is possible to achieve decommissioning by June 2001, does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the constant harping of the Conservative party makes the process more difficult?
    Mr. Ingram: I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about that: I am tempted to use a different word to describe my response, but perhaps I should not use it today. I have said before, from this Dispatch Box, that the weakness in the Opposition's position is that they claim to be part of a bipartisan approach but constantly seek to question every dot and comma of what the Government seek to do. The Labour party in opposition gave the previous Conservative Government support when the going was tough, and Conservative Members should do the same now.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister confirm that, during the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement, the Government's position was that it was a twin-track process, and that decommissioning would be delivered when a political agreement was delivered? Two and half years on will he confirm that not a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet has been delivered by Sinn Fein-IRA?
    Mr. Ingram: Of course I can confirm that. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have redoubled their efforts over recent days to move the process forward. I recognise that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants what I want for Northern Ireland, and that is a peaceful settlement. He comes at the problem from a direction that is different from mine, but I know that he shares that objective. I think that he should give encouragement to the process and put some hope into it, because—and I repeat the point—that is what most people in his constituency and in Northern Ireland want. They want peace, and no more violence.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister will be aware that it is widely believed that political pressure is being put on the armed forces to move towards demilitarisation in Northern Ireland in return for perhaps at last some movement on decommissioning. Does he accept that this would be highly dangerous and that Ministers will be responsible if such changes in security lead to loss of life?
    Mr. Ingram: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not learned any lessons from his past experience serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. No political pressure is put on our security advisers. We take their advice. It is a process of consultation; it is considering all of the options that are open to us. We have said time and again that we take the best security advice available before we move. The advice that we receive is first class and we have always responded to it.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [145476]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires; however, there remains a continued threat from dissident paramilitaries, as evidenced by recent attacks on the security forces at Cookstown, the recent bombs discovered in South Armagh and Claudy, and yesterday's mortar attack on Ebrington. These are serious developments. However, the security forces are ready and capable of dealing with these threats, and they deserve our highest praise for all their brave efforts.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the light of those two incidents, and in the absence of any real decommissioning in Northern Ireland, is it not wholly inappropriate and undesirable for so-called demilitarisation even to be considered at this stage, let alone progress?
    Mr. Ingram: I think that I recounted more than two incidents. The hon. Gentleman should look at my answer. There have been too many incidents in recent days and recent weeks. This is a very serious development, but the security forces are ready to tackle it. It is not a case of demilitarisation, as the hon. Gentleman avers; it is a question of seeking normalisation within Northern Ireland. It must be part of a sequenced process. It is what all of the talks have been about, and it is what our current efforts in seeking a resolution of this very difficult impasse are about.
    Mr. Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent incidents in north Belfast, Coleraine, Cookstown and Armagh prove yet again that certain individuals in Northern Ireland are intent on wrecking the peace process and are by their very actions undermining the best wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland; that their actions are a threat to democracy itself; and that we in this House must give the Ministers in Northern Ireland every possible support in achieving a lasting peace for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. What those dissident factions are doing, and what the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups are doing by carrying out their sectarian attacks on innocent Catholics, is to make a serious attempt to undermine the peace process. That is their objective. We are determined that they will not succeed, and I hope that the whole House will support every effort that is being made at present by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, including the security forces, which are showing their determination, to achieve the objective set out in the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister agree that there can be no satisfactory security situation until there is a meaningful handing in of weapons and explosives? Is not decommissioning the longest-running political soap of all time? Does the right

    913
    hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Northern Ireland as a whole want decommissioning? When will he set a meaningful timetable to achieve it?
    Mr. Ingram: It would be too nice to call that a rant. There was not one word of a solution in that question. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for many long years. He will know that this issue is not easily resolved. Decommissioning is a voluntary process, and it must be done on the basis of reaching agreement. The Good Friday agreement itself is very clear on what the objective is: it is the removal of all illegally held weapons. That is what the present Government seek, and it is what previous Governments sought. Hopefully, we shall achieve it.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Has not the Secretary of State's regrettable and impending resignation indicated how vulnerable we all are when the press decide that they a want a politician's head on a platter? [Interruption.] Can I express the hope that those same editors who have called for my right hon. Friend's resignation will now turn their attention to writing articles congratulating him on the work that he did in Northern Ireland to resolve the problems of conflict?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether my hon. Friend takes time to read The Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph or the News Letter, but if he has had the opportunity to do so over recent days, he will have seen the balanced and constructive way in which those newspapers have approached the issue of police reform with regard to the current talks. I hope that other parts of our media will respond to the very positive, constructive approach adopted by the newspapers in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: May I record our appreciation for the contribution that the Secretary of State has made to the Province? In sometimes difficult times, we believe that his work has brought peace closer and for that, the House and the Province are in his debt.
    What is the likely impact of the impending general election on normalisation and the peace process, given that Northern Ireland parties are evidently beginning to gear up for it? It could be predicted that that might cause some obstacles in the momentum of the process.
    Mr. Ingram: The important thing is to focus on the task at hand and not to be distracted by extraneous influences. That is the way in which the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been approaching this in recent days as well as over a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will be only too conscious of the sterling efforts made by the political parties in Northern Ireland in those discussions. I think that they are focused on what they are seeking to achieve, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support them in that.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the atrocious pipe-bomb attacks that have been taking place with such frequency throughout Northern Ireland? Will he confirm the degree of sophistication in the recent major bomb attacks that were launched on the security forces? Will he also confirm that the security forces were so able to deal with the situation in Claudy, that while they found the
    914
    hoax bomb that the IRA planted at the front gate, they did not find the real one which had been planted at the back gate until the IRA rang up and told them to start looking for it again? Does that not indicate that there should be no further diminution in the capacity of the security forces to seek out intelligence, which would mean keeping the towers in South Armagh, and enough troops and police on the ground to secure the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable has, in recent days, indicated through attribution who planted those devices, and has also said that they are very sophisticated. We are dealing with a very determined, nasty and evil force that knows what its objectives are. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question about removal of intelligence-gathering means and the security profile, we have said that that must always be part of the discussions between the parties and those who have illegally held weapons. It is about seeking the removal of all illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland, and normalisation can proceed apace on the back of that.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: How can anyone claim that the security situation or the peace process are holding when so-called "punishment beatings" are on the increase and becoming more severe? Are there not some parts of the Province that are practically unpoliced, despite the valour of the RUC?
    Mr. Ingram: I would not say that parts of Northern Ireland are "unpoliced", but parts are difficult to police because of an unwillingness by certain parts of the community, for whatever reason, to co-operate with the police. That is one reason why the Good Friday agreement highlighted the importance of a different policing approach for Northern Ireland, on the back of all the other things in that agreement. Reform of the RUC is about achieving that type of acceptable policing service throughout Northern Ireland. That requires the co-operation of the community just as much as other changes mentioned in the Patten report that the Government put forward in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and are now seeking to implement.
    Dr. William McCrea: In the light of the serious attacks mentioned by the Minister—multiple murder bids on members of the security forces—and while it has been claimed that dissident members of the republican movement are responsible, no one can hide behind the reality that such actions could not have been taken without at least the compliance of the Provisional IRA. The weaponry of the Provos—Semtex, bombs and guns—have been used in the hands of republicans. Is it not time for a proactive security initiative against those dissidents and republicans, to allow a real peace process that all the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy?
    Mr. Ingram: The assertions at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question are not borne out by the assessments of the Chief Constable and our security advisers. I would rather trust their judgment than that of the hon. Gentleman.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. William Cash: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): As the House is well aware, I had a meeting this morning with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has since announced his decision to resign from the Government later today. I would like to pay the warmest possible tribute to him for the tireless efforts he has made to secure peace in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and also for his personal courage and sense of duty in coming to the House this afternoon to answer questions on Northern Ireland before departing the Government.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of this Question Time to spell out the truth to the House of Commons and to the country regarding the events surrounding the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I accept that the reply of the Secretary of State, through his office, to inquiries from a newspaper at the weekend was misleading and resulted in the House of Commons and the Lobby being misled—and I accepted his resignation on that basis.
    On the information presently available to me, I believe that the application for naturalisation of the individual in question was decided in accordance with the proper criteria—and so does the Home Secretary. None the less, I have asked Sir Anthony Hammond QC, former Treasury Solicitor, to review the case fully so that we can be sure that the application was dealt with properly in all respects. Sir Anthony will report his findings to me and we will publish them.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the immense contribution of many individuals and organisations in the preparations for national holocaust memorial day—the first of which will take place this Saturday, 27 January? On that day, we can remember all the victims of the holocaust, learn the lessons of the holocaust for today's society, and stand together to confront racism, anti-semitism and intolerance, wherever they may occur.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. National holocaust day is an important innovation, which I hope and believe has the support of all right hon. and hon. Members. It will allow us to commemorate dreadful acts of racism—particularly those in the 20th century—and serve as a reminder to young people in particular that the events of the second world war and the racial genocide that was exhibited then should never be repeated in humankind.
    Mr. William Hague: I agree with the Prime Minister's sentiments about national holocaust
    916
    day, when we will join together across parties to remember the terrible events of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.
    Now that the Prime Minister has notched up the historic achievement of being forced to sack the same Minister for the same offence twice in 25 months, does he recognise that his career-long dependency on the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has been a monumental error of judgment?
    The Prime Minister: I do not suppose that I ever expected the right hon. Gentleman to behave graciously at all on the resignation of my right hon. Friend, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I believe that the job done by my right hon. Friend in Northern Ireland well merited his position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think he has made an enormous contribution to it; indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that I doubt whether the process in Northern Ireland would have been sustained so well but for his commitment. I therefore believe it was right that he occupied that position, and I also believe that he is a bigger man than many of his critics.
    Mr. Hague: The fact is that to reappoint in September 1999 a disgraced Minister 10 months after he was forced to resign, in breach of every convention and precedent, was a demonstration of the arrogance with which the Prime Minister wields his power. To spare himself and the country going through this a third time, will the Prime Minister now guarantee that his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will not be running the election campaign of the Labour party and will not return to office in any Government led by him?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already made that clear in the statement that he gave earlier. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think my right hon. Friend has done the right thing; I think that he has done the honourable thing. It is a long tradition in this House that when someone does that, we pay tribute to it. I am only sorry that once again the Leader of the Opposition has lived down to my expectations.
    Mr. Hague: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool has done the right thing, but it is a pity that the Prime Minister's judgment led him to have to do it twice within the space of one Parliament. Does this not go wider than the matter of the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been central to everything that the Prime Minister has done? It was the right hon. Gentleman who picked the Prime Minister out; the right hon. Gentleman who briefed the press for him; the right hon. Gentleman who stabbed the Chancellor in the back for him; the right hon. Gentleman who spun all of his campaigns for him. Is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's statement sadly could not be relied upon the reason not only that he has had to go, but that he has been at the heart of the entire new Labour project?
    The Prime Minister: I think the Leader of the Opposition probably wrote most of that before my right hon. Friend resigned; he just forgot to change the script. I repeat that I believe it was right that my right hon. Friend came back into Government as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I honestly believe that, in the broad

    917
    sweep of history, his contribution to that process will be far greater than what has happened in the past 24 hours, tragic though that is.
    Mr. Hague: This is not about the broad sweep of history; it is about the conduct of the Government—the disgraceful conduct—of the Government. Has this not told us everything we need to know, not about the right hon. Member for Hartlepool but about the way in which the Government do their business? The Prime Minister said that they would be purer than pure and, as with every other pledge, he has failed to deliver. When asked to choose between high standards of government and the low politics of his cronies, he has unerringly chosen the latter. He has set those standards himself. In every incomplete answer in the House, in every distorted accusation and in every piece of baseless spin, the Prime Minister has set the standards of the Government. In a Government where standards of truth, honesty and integrity have taken second place to spin and smear, is he not truly the first among equals?
    The Prime Minister: I really think that by that performance the right hon. Gentleman diminishes himself far more than he diminishes anybody else—[Interruption.] I believe that. I made it clear that if people did something wrong, they would pay the penalty; and my right hon. Friend has paid the penalty—that is true. I also believe that he can be very proud of his record and the contribution that he made while he was in Government. As for the rest of the nonsense the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, I have no intention of getting into it.
    Mr. Barry Jones: That was the shabbiest contribution from a Leader of the Opposition in living memory.
    May I tell my right hon. Friend that the steel company, Corus, has given hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds to its shareholders, but now plans to make thousands and thousands of its magnificent work force redundant and that that cannot be right? It must be unjust. May I also tell him that steelworkers at Shotton in my constituency stand to lose their cold strip mill, even though they are the most efficient and effective work force in the product? Does he agree that the activities of Corus will denude our manufacturing capability? No nation can be great without a steel industry.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right to raise the concerns of his constituents and to pay tribute to their skill and productivity. They are among some of the most highly productive and skilled workers anywhere in the country—or, indeed, the whole of Europe. We therefore very much regret the discussions that are presently going on in the Corus company. We shall do everything that we can to avoid that situation, and we have already made that clear to the company itself.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree that if there is an error of judgment at work in the Chamber this afternoon, it is perhaps the error of judgment that fails to acknowledge that the Prime Minister, as a result of this morning's events, has confirmed that Ministers of the
    918
    Crown must not just be beyond reproach, but be seen to be beyond reproach? Does he agree that one of the practical implications of today's events is that the ministerial code of conduct should be reviewed with the specific aim of seeking to further public confidence in the political process as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe it is necessary to review the code; it is necessary to make judgments under it. I think that the code is indeed justified in its own terms. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the tone of the rest of his remarks, which stand in contrast with the Conservative Opposition, who, I suspect, have for some weeks tried to get out an argument on policy and failed, and are all too happy to turn to something else.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I further ask the Prime Minister a question on policy, and a very important policy it is, too—the continuation of the Northern Ireland peace process? Given the exchanges earlier this afternoon in the Chamber, will he confirm that the momentum of the Government remains undiminished in seeking to make the progress that both sides of the House want, but to which only two parties have given voice in the House this afternoon?
    The Prime Minister: I want to place on record the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process, yet again. Whatever the difficulties and whatever the obstacles in the way of its completion, Northern Ireland today is a better and more prosperous place than it was a few years ago, before that peace process came about. Of course—because it is a process, not an event—it will take an enormous amount of work, and, of course, it takes immense political courage by those involved, but I am sure that it is better to be involved in pushing the process on than to stand aside and hope that it will fail. I have no doubt at all that, for the people in Northern Ireland, the peace process still represents the only conceivable chance of the stable and decent future that they deserve.
    Kali Mountford: Since last week when my right hon. Friend told the House that he had had no application from the Americans for a nuclear base in Yorkshire, my constituents have been made fearful by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I have told them that they should write to him and tell him about his error of judgment, but what can my right hon. Friend say to my constituents to put their minds at rest?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend—as, indeed, I said in the exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition last week —that when we get a proposal, we will consider it carefully and make our decisions on it, but our closeness to our American allies is well known. However, this is in the box marked "Handle with care"—which is what we will do.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent increase in police numbers in Hampshire has merely restored the force to its 1998 levels? We are still 90 police officers under budget and a further 95 short on recruitment. Although the package for the Metropolitan police is welcome, does he realise that the offer of a free rail season ticket is inducing officers who work in Eastleigh to leave the Hampshire

    919
    force and commute to London? Will he assure the House that he will introduce as soon as possible a comprehensive, flexible package for police officers in Hampshire so that we can recruit and retain the officers that we need to police the area properly?
    The Prime Minister: We are, in fact, awaiting a response from the Police Negotiating Board to our proposals, which are designed to attract and recruit officers in areas such as Eastleigh. Although those areas are not within the London region, they are none the less areas with buoyant levels of employment where house prices are high. We are waiting for the board to come back to us on those proposals.
    As for Hampshire, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that its number of police officers has increased. I emphasise once again that that is only because of the levels of investment that we are putting into the police. We are also making investment available in Hampshire and elsewhere so that we can continue to recruit in the coming years. If we can bolster that with a package—albeit it one that might be different from the London package—that attracts new recruits to an even greater extent, we will make progress faster.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Bolton hospitals have the second-highest mortality rate in the north-west and the eighth highest in the country, according to a recent report. The Wigan and Bolton health authority was the second farthest away from target for health funding in 1997. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents and those who live in similarly deprived areas deserve better targeting for health expenditure in the future?
    The Prime Minister: It is indeed important that we manage to put the extra investment in the health service into areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. One reason that we know how the different areas now compare in terms of health performance is because we publish the data. One reason why we are able to see whether, for example, similar hospitals in similar areas are performing differently is because we have conducted and published a review of those data.
    However, there is no alternative in the medium and long term to getting the extra investment into the service. We need to ensure that it goes into primary care services to increase the number of doctors and nurses and to increase the facilities in our hospitals. We are providing that investment. As my hon. Friend knows, the difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that we believe in investing in our public services and they do not.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is not the Prime Minister seriously concerned that he presides over a political system in which it is possible for a very rich man to purchase for £10 million the foreign and economic policy and choice of leader of a major political party? In view of today's events, what does he propose to do to stop rich people seeking to purchase political influence in that way?
    The Prime Minister: I was not sure initially where the hon. Gentleman's question was leading, but if it is the case that someone has for £10 million purchased the right
    920
    hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as leader of the Conservative party, I am surprised he ever made the money in the first place.
    Mr. Richard Burden: I think my right hon. Friend is aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and I returned from the west bank and the Gaza strip. The visit was organised by War on Want, and we had the opportunity to meet President Arafat and representatives of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry.
    During our visit, President Arafat offered intensive peace talks, which have subsequently been suspended following the deaths of two Israelis. Given that more than 300 Palestinians have also died and that this weekend an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinian 10-year-old child was sentenced to six months' community service, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the early resumption of those peace talks, because we must do all we can to achieve comprehensive settlement on the basis of resolutions 242, 338 and 194?
    The Prime Minister: I concur entirely that it is important that the peace negotiations get back under way in the middle east. Indeed, quite apart from reasons of stability in the middle east, there is the knock-on effect that instability there has on all countries in the region and on western countries, including our own. I believe that it is important that those peace talks resume, because the one thing that we have learned from our own peace process in Northern Ireland is that, if these processes are not solved or at least managed, they slip backwards very fast indeed.
    The tragedy of the middle east is that people were so close to agreement and then, in the past few months, it has fallen apart again. Therefore, I am very happy to play whatever part I can—we do what we can—to make sure that the peace negotiations resume in the interests of not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the whole region and the wider world.
    Mr. Andrew George: Has this country got its priorities right when million-pound cheques of public subsidy are given to large agribusiness holdings, which do not need them, while small and efficient family farms, which are the bedrock of rural life, are going out of business in their droves?
    The Prime Minister: I know that a debate has often gone on about the levels of subsidy to large and small farms. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind, but I emphasise to him that, overall, we in this country pay out about £3,000 million a year by way of subsidy to the whole farming industry. Incidentally, that is more than we pay out to all the other industries of the country put together.
    However, it is important that we review constantly how that money is used. One of the reasons that we want reform of the common agricultural policy in the European Union is to make sure that we reward and help efficient farms—whether small or large—and do not subsidise farms that perhaps need to diversify or change their practices.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn

    921
    and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and make my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern on Teesside about the threatened job losses in Corus? He will be aware of the discussions that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Wales have had with the Corus management. He will also be aware that the value of the pound is more in equilibrium with the euro and the deutschmark and that our skills and work force are second to none, so is it not appropriate to tell Corus's management that they should think, think and think again?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is entirely right. We have very much urged that course upon the Corus management. There are difficulties with certain manufacturing companies as a result of the strength of the pound or the weakness of the euro over the past few months. That problem has somewhat abated now, and that is why I hope that Corus uses that as an opportunity to rethink this policy.
    The fact is that we have an economy that is immensely strong and that is doing very well, but there are pockets, particularly in the manufacturing sector, that face very hard times. We will do everything that we can as a Government, within proper limits, to help, but I hope that Corus recognises that it has a work force as dedicated and as skilled as any work force in the country.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, British Sugar announced the closure of the Bardney factory in my constituency and of other sugar factories around the country? Sugar beet has been one of the few buoyant sectors in agriculture. It is being put at risk in the atmosphere of uncertainty caused by the everything but arms initiative and quota arrangements where the Government's message, at best, has been mixed.
    Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, up and down the country, as farmers face the worst agricultural depression since the 1930s, they cannot understand why the Government are promoting measures that are, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, damaging to the cause of farmers? Is he also aware that there is hope? The people are gathering and, on 18 March, the greatest march ever will descend on this capital—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his good, fair share.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the announcement that was made yesterday, although I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the reasons for it being made. However, in respect of agriculture, farmers have been facing a very difficult situation over the past few years, and that is for three reasons primarily. First, there has been a collapse in commodity prices, not particularly in relation to the industry that he mentioned but in others. Secondly, farmers have had the problems of BSE. Thirdly, they have had to deal with the problems of the very strong pound.
    We are doing everything we can. We have had emergency aid packages for farmers. I have just pointed out the huge subsidies that we pay out, although I recall that the hon. Gentleman was never keen on subsidies as a matter of principle when he was in government; perhaps
    922
    he has changed his views now. The point is that we are doing everything we can, but I do not think that his constituents or others in the farming industry are helped by people who say that there is a simple solution to their problems. There is not. Each of the three problems has to be dealt with. Some of them are outside our control, but the support that we are giving exceeds many of the programmes introduced by the previous Government.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend take no lessons from the party of Neil Hamilton, Lord Archer and Jonathan Aitken, but continue resolutely with record public spending on health, education and other public services and warn the public of the dangers of the £16 billion worth of cuts from the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are very big choices—the last thing that the Conservatives ever want to discuss—before the country. There is stability in economic policy versus a return to the levels of interest rates, debt, mortgage repossessions and unemployment seen under the previous Administration. There is 1 million extra jobs versus 3 million unemployed. There is the extra investment in public services versus the £16 billion worth of cuts in public services. Whatever spring in their step the Conservatives have today, when it gets to those big choices, I can assure them that they will lose and we will win.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: On 25 February 1998, I asked the Prime Minister to come to Ribble Valley to see for himself the plight of the countryside, but he was too busy to come. Since then, things have got decidedly worse, with more post office closures, local rural schools closing—one closed in my constituency only last year—the highest petrol taxes anywhere in Europe, country pursuits now facing extinction and farming facing the worst crisis in more than 60 years.
    The Prime Minister would not come to Ribble Valley three years ago, but on 18 March the countryside will come to him. Will he give a commitment to the countryside to remain in London on 18 March and to receive a delegation of marchers from Ribble Valley, so that they can tell kin face to face how bad it is in the countryside these days?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me put the hon. Gentleman right on a few facts. Yes, it is true that there have been closures of rural post offices: there were about 3,000 closures under the previous Conservative Government and that process has continued for reasons with which we are all familiar, but the current Government are putting in additional investment to try to give rural post offices a future. On the issue of rural schools, I honestly do not know how he or any other Conservative Member has the cheek to go on about the closures—the Conservatives closed hundreds of rural schools, whereas the Labour party is putting investment into our schools. As for fuel duty, I shall point out only one fact: in the last Parliament, there was a greater increase in fuel duty than there has been in the current Parliament. Those are the facts.

    923
    As for the future, the countryside needs two things: a stable economy, which we are providing, and help for the farming industry, which we are providing. Most of all, people in the countryside need investment in their schools, their hospitals and their police. Before the hon. Gentleman tries to capitalise on any grievances they have, he should explain to them how he will revive those schools, hospitals and police when he is committed to cutting the very investment on which they depend.
    Ms Joan Ryan: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my constituency youth unemployment has fallen by 73 per cent. since the advent of the Labour Government? Last week, employers expressed deep concern about the Conservatives' threats to abolish the new deal. Will my right hon. Friend give further reassurance that the new deal will continue to be an important part of Labour's programme?
    The Prime Minister: The new deal will certainly remain a very important part of the Government's programme because it has helped to cut youth unemployment. Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by about 70 per cent. We remember the days when hundreds of thousands of this county's young people had no hope; the new deal has given them hope. The new deal has provided investment in our schools. How many Members of Parliament, including Conservative Members, have got extra investment in their local schools as a result of the new deal? It has also helped many lone parents to get back into work when they want to do so.
    924
    The danger of the Opposition is not merely that they are committed to cutting the new deal—a policy that will cut that hope for the young and that investment in school buildings—but also that, as the shadow Chancellor said the other day, they are committed to taking half a billion pounds off single parent benefit in this country, at the same time as abolishing the new deal that helps single parents to get away from benefit and into work. That is another very good reason why the people of this country will see through the Opposition whenever the election comes.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Prime Minister may be aware that the UK Parliament has been overtaken in the use of new technology by other bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Given his public commitment to placing the UK at the forefront of the information age, does he believe that his Government could and should do more to support the UK Parliament, so that citizens can properly engage with representatives in this House?
    The Prime Minister: As something of a novice in the new technology, I can certainly undertake to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Of course, it is important for this Parliament to set a good example in the use of new technology. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that support for such technology is important for every single part of our country. I am happy to support him in his endeavours in this place.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is making a point of order.
Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to you and also to the Home Secretary.
I do not want to make any further comment on matters concerning the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, there are issues surrounding what happened in the Home Office after his representation was made. There are also issues about what action was taken after that representation, whether the representation had any bearing on the seemingly extraordinary speed with which the application was then settled and what records exist in the Home Office of the various conversations that occurred. Have you received any request from the Home Secretary for the opportunity to make a statement to clear the matter up once and for all?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no requests from the Home Secretary.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, being a pretty straight kind of guy, informed the House that he has rightly set up an inquiry into the events surrounding the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Has your office received any indication from his office about whether the report containing the
926
results of that inquiry will be rendered to the House before, during or only after any election campaign that the Prime Minister is minded to initiate?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, which arises from Question Time. I think that the House applauds you for trying to ensure that questions and answers are shorter. One understands the position of new Members, but most hon. Members have now been in the House for two or three years. Would not it greatly help the House if hon. Members began by asking a question and not by providing a large roll call of events before they do so? Cannot we get questions and answers to be as they are meant to be: short and concise?
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, which, as he will know, I put to the House shortly before Christmas. It is not only the newer Members who are guilty of the actions to which he refers, but also some of the most senior, although I do not, of course, refer to him.
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it has occasionally been the practice that, when the Government announce an inquiry, Ministers use it as a reason not to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions about the subjects that the inquiry is investigating. Can you take steps to discover whether Ministers intend to use the inquiry to block answering any parliamentary questions until it reports? If that is their intention, can you take steps to protect the interests of all hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I shall not inquire into Ministers' intentions. I am bound by the rules of the House, which the hon. Gentleman has helped to create. As long as Ministers and hon. Members keep to those rules, I have nothing to say in such matters.

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I announce that there is a 15-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers, and that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move,
  That this House is alarmed at the continuing job losses in manufacturing industry, which now total over 300,000 since the 1997 election; condemns the Government for having abandoned this sector of the economy while burdening it with additional taxes and regulations; and demands that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry brings forward a strategy for restoring the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry in world markets.
  I declare the interests recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that are relevant to the debate.
  We have called the debate to galvanise the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government generally into doing something about the plight of manufacturing industry. We want to shake them out of their inertia into dealing with the crisis in large sectors of manufacturing.
  Since the general election in 1997, approximately 350,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. The cause is a fatal combination of complacency and failed policies. The Government are complacent because they inherited from us a golden economic legacy, which they have failed to maintain. Indeed, they have eroded the competitiveness that we achieved. Their policies have failed because they have not understood the challenges that manufacturing faces in the modem world. They have imposed layer upon layer of extra regulations and business taxes, which have attacked our competitiveness.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will give way later.
  The CBI has estimated that the total burden of taxes and regulations during this Parliament amounts to £32 billion. That is a ball and chain around the ankle of British manufacturing industry. There is a time lag in the effects of that burden, but they are now apparent in a clear loss of competitiveness.
  The World Economic Forum reports that the United Kingdom has slipped down the competitiveness league from fourth place under the Conservative Government to ninth place now. That affects manufacturing jobs. Last year, more than 100,000 net jobs were lost in that sector. I contrast that with the figures for the last Parliament. From 1992–97, the number of manufacturing jobs increased by 69,000.
  Today, firms and industries are threatened throughout the country. Ford and Vauxhall have announced the end of car making at several of their plants. We desperately hope that Nissan will retain its capacity to make the next Micra in Sunderland. However, that is in the balance. Last year, Corus, our largest steel manufacturer, shed 4,500
  928
  jobs. This year, another 6,000 jobs are threatened, especially in important plants in Redcar and Llanwern. If Llanwern shuts, it will be a body blow to the entire south Wales economy, and the ripple effect will be felt much more widely. My constituency, which supplies limestone to Llanwern, will be affected. I therefore appreciate the seriousness of the matter.
  Amid all that, the Department of Trade and Industry has become a mere spectator, although it has got bigger: the Secretary of State presides over a Department that has gained 1,000 more civil servants since the general election—but what are they all doing? The Department cannot even pay its own bills on time.
  In a previous incarnation, the Secretary of State negotiated a public service agreement with the DTI. It states unambiguously that the DTI is
  committed to paying all correctly presented bills within 30 days of receipt.
  Shortly after the agreement, the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to deliver on it. He became Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and what has happened? The performance has worsened: the DTI has broken its agreement.
  Under the last Government, the Department was paying all its own bills 98 per cent. of the time. The percentage has now slipped to 93. The Department is very near the bottom of the Whitehall league table: it is 51st worst of a total of 57. It cannot even pay the money that it owes companies for goods supplied. So much for helping British industry.
  Even more striking is the saga of the disappearing ministerial group on manufacturing job losses. The House will recall that at the end of last year there was a lot of adverse comment about manufacturing job losses. The Government announced to the press—not, of course, to the House—that a ministerial group would be set up. On 21 December last year, the Leader of the House confirmed the existence of the group, saying:
  The group will consider a range of manufacturing issues.— [Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 574.]
  The Christmas and new year holiday went by, and the job losses were temporarily out of the news. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), however, tabled a parliamentary question to the Department asking what had happened to the ministerial group. He received the reply:
  There is no such group.—[Official Report, 8 January 2001: Vol. 360, c.356W.]
  That is the story of the incredible shrinking ministerial group. It simply vanished into thin air.
  The reason is that the DTI is driven entirely by media considerations. If something is in the news, it does something about it—or it says that it will do something about it. When the issue is no longer in the news, it gets forgotten.
  We also remember the famous saga of rip-off Britain. At the 1997 Labour party conference, the Secretary of State intoned solemnly:
  rip-off Britain must come to an end … We've already started. Investigations have begun into the cost of … prices at supermarkets. It is simply unacceptable to have hard-earned wages pickpocketed at the cash register.
  A year later, after the industry had had to spend £20 million explaining its case to the Competition

  929
  Commission—which itself spent nearly £4 million of public money on one of its biggest inquiries ever—the result was the following statement:
  we are satisfied that the industry is currently broadly competitive and that, overall, excessive prices are not being charged, nor excessive profits earned.
  That was the end of "rip-off Britain"—a soundbite at the time, huge public and private expense, and nothing at the end of it.
  This is a Government, this is a Department, this is a Secretary of State obsessed with packaging and appearance rather than with substance and delivery. A worse charge, however, is that the Government and the DTI are weak in regard to industrial issues.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend talks of the weakness of the DTI. A few moments ago, he talked of the weakness of the car industry. Does he agree with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which says that
  the Climate Change Levy will result in substantial increases in production costs for the UK motor industry
  and adds:
  In a globally competitive market it is not possible to pass on these cost increases, and there are fears that UK based businesses—
  including the car industry—
  will lose out as a consequence.
  Is my hon. Friend therefore surprised by the closure of Vauxhall and other plants?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall say more on that point in a moment.
  It is typical that, at Prime Minister's Question Time today, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would do everything possible to save such companies, yet he will not abolish or withdraw the damaging tax that will come into effect in April.
  Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
  Mr. Pike rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I promised that I would give way to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
  Mr. Pike: I represent a constituency that is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs. Was the right hon. Gentleman not being somewhat selective when he referred to the previous Government's record from 1992 onwards? What about the period of Thatcherism, during which the importance of manufacturing industry was totally dismissed? The Thatcher Government were in office for many years, and witnessed the loss of many hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the complete deletion of many manufacturing centres from this country.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about that, because he is affected by some of the job losses about which I am speaking.
  930
  Yes, the restructuring in the 1980s caused job losses, but those policies of industrial and trade union reform are now accepted by the Government as an essential precondition to the industrial recovery that followed. I repeat that, after we had achieved the restructuring, jobs in manufacturing industry rose under the Conservative Government. Then, in came the new Labour Government, who abandoned manufacturing industry and ignored its problems, resulting in 350,000 job losses over the past four years. I ask hon. Members to consider the truth of those statistics and what lies behind them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to make a little more progress, because this is a short debate.
  My essential charge is that the Department of Trade and Industry does not stand up for manufacturing industry. There are many examples of that, including energy prices. Industrial gas prices have doubled over the past year. Indeed, that is the subject of an early-day motion tabled by Labour Members. However, when challenged about this problem—which affects all manufacturing industry—the DTI simply said that it
  continued to monitor the gas market.
  That is a wholly inadequate response to a very real problem.
  There is much worse to come. I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) in his intervention. From April this year, all firms will be paying a new energy tax—the so-called climate change levy—on all their energy bills, including those reflecting the higher gas prices that are now feeding through. The Engineering Employers Federation has shown in a recent survey that 2,300 of its member firms, employing nearly 1.5 million people, will have to pay nearly £100 million extra in taxation. That money could have gone into investment, but the costs will now have to be fed into higher prices, which will make the firms less competitive in the international markets.
  Mr. Tom King: I am bound to agree with my right hon. Friend's assessment about the prospects for manufacturing industry, which are serious.
  I know of a number of companies that have managed to compete, despite the strong pound, and that have been hanging on, albeit at a reduced level of performance. Unfortunately, however, the new energy prices are likely to be the final straw that will break their backs.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend speaks from great experience, and also from regional experience: his constituency is next to mine, and we share a number of firms that will have direct experience of the high energy prices. What baffles those firms—and annoys them—is the supine indifference of the Department to this escalating problem, and the fact that it is bringing into effect a tax in a few months' time that will make a bad situation worse.
  The Engineering Employers Federation is particularly annoyed that the companies that they surveyed do not even qualify for the limited rebates available under the new tax. Those firms are in textiles, rubber, plastics, motor vehicles and aircraft manufacturing—they go right

  931
  across the manufacturing spectrum—and they cannot understand why they will not he eligible for the rebates available.
  To be eligible, firms must be polluting companies and must be regulated under anti-pollution regulations. I promise the House that what I say is true: there are firms that have switched to cleaner industrial processes, thereby making themselves ineligible for the rebates. In other words, they are doing the right thing for the environment—trying to clean up their plants and stopping the pollution—but, by doing that, they are rendering themselves ineligible for the rebates under the new energy tax. That is the politics of a madhouse.
  Everything has been explained to the Government. Firms in my constituency, firms in London and firms up north and in the midlands, which I visit, have patiently told DTI officials and Ministers exactly what the problem is, but they get no response whatever.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 had a significant impact on British manufacturing industry inasmuch as many major chemical, gas and plastics sectors were forced to suspend their processes altogether because the cost of implementing the legislation was so great? If he had the opportunity, would he repeal the Act, knowing what he now knows about the impact of the cost of implementing it?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I would not. We took great care to minimise the impact on our manufacturing industry and to ensure its competitiveness in world markets. That is completely different from what is happening now, whereby the Government are deliberately introducing a new tax when energy prices are already rising. The tax does not need to be introduced. The Finance Act 2000 only allows the Government to introduce the measure; it could be withdrawn today. The Secretary of State could get to his feet, say that he has listened and learned and tell the House that he will not bring the tax into effect. That would provide immense relief right across manufacturing industry, and I challenge him to do so in the debate.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I visited a factory in my constituency a few weeks ago and was told that gas supply cost the company £300,000 last year. Next year, the bill will be £600,000. Gas is the company's third largest cost so it does not need the Government to tell it to try to reduce energy costs.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Exactly. That experience and that information is available to the Government; it has been explained to them. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is real anger and frustration that the Government appear to listen, but fail to act.
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way once more, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).
  Mr. Jack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain industries—chemicals and sugar, for example—made
  932
  efforts to introduce combined heat and power schemes to improve energy efficiency? Some of those investments have had to be cancelled because of the barmy nature of the climate change levy.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Those are other industries that have been let down. They were promised that all combined heat and power plants would be exempt from the levy, but that turned out to be completely untrue. The larger plants used by the sugar industry and others will pay the levy, at least in part. Industry is trying to do what is right for the environment and trying to save energy, but it will be clobbered by a new and unnecessary tax.
  We heard about Corus at Prime Minister's questions and I have already referred to it. The company will pay some £8 million a year under the tax. That will completely undermine any rescue package that it is trying to put together. The tax will also be bad for the environment. If steel making is exported to countries with lower environmental standards, the global environment will suffer, so the tax does not even make sense from an environmental perspective.
  Corus is not the only company affected. Sony, which also has a plant in south Wales, announced 400 job losses at the end of last year and said:
  It is not just the euro; it is the fact that all these things are coming together … Transport costs are very high in the United Kingdom and the climate change levy alone will add £500,000 to the cost of our … tube-making business.
  There is therefore a direct link between a new tax and 400 job losses in south Wales.
  Judy Mallaber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Lady forgive me? This is a short debate and I still have two points that I wish to make. I hope that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later; hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to do something for manufacturing and want clear answers from those on the Government Front Bench on the subject.
  The climate change levy is bad, damaging and environmentally unnecessary. We will abolish it: that is a clear pledge. However that is not enough. We require from the Government a package of measures to help manufacturing industry. There is the issue of the pound-euro exchange rate, which the House should not ignore. Exporters to Europe have real problems, which are made worse by the fact that the Chancellor has made a commitment to increase public spending way above the economy's growth rate over the next three years. That, in turn, tends to keep interest rates, as set by the Bank of England, higher than they otherwise would be.
  We will ensure that manufacturing industry is represented, not on the Monetary Policy Committee, which would not be right, but as a member of the committee of economic advisers which we will set up to ensure that the fiscal stance—the borrowing, taxing and expenditure profile of the Government—is consistent with keeping inflation under control and having interest rates no higher than they need to be for that purpose. That gives manufacturing a place at the top table, which it has been denied under the Government.

  933
  Then there is the question of the regulatory burden. The Government have vaguely woken up to the fact that there is a regulatory problem in this country and have even promised a Bill for this Session, although we have not seen it yet. There are great doubts about whether we will; it will certainly not be enacted by the date of the election. We shall ensure that every Department has a deregulation budget to reduce business's regulatory costs year by year. We shall ensure that that is independently audited and reported to the House.
  What we really want from the Government is equivalent action. Instead of blaming every past Government for mistakes, why does the Secretary of State not take some responsibility himself and use his Department to stand up for manufacturing industry? He should listen to those who manage and work in those threatened industries and hear what they say about the burden of red tape, rising energy prices and extra taxation. Above all, will the Secretary of State and the Government stop wringing their hands about those job losses and actually do something so that those industries can regain their lost competitiveness and their vigour in world markets?
  3.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the low inflation and low interest rates that this Government has brought and which bring the economic stability needed by the manufacturing sector; welcomes the measures that this Government has taken to encourage investment, innovation and productivity which will particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's approach in helping businesses and people through structural change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition's record on manufacturing, where employment declined by 2¾ million during its period in office.".
  Manufacturing matters to the Government, and I want to use this opportunity to outline success stories in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 21st century. I then want to go on to tell the House how we intend to assist those industries that are going through the painful process of restructuring at present.
  Manufacturing matters because it accounts for about one fifth of our national income, with almost £150 billion a year of output. Manufacturing employs about 4 million people directly, and indirectly employs 2.5 million people in service sector jobs. A strong manufacturing sector is therefore a vital part of our economic base, and it includes some of the businesses that have invested most heavily in innovation.
  Manufacturing clearly faces challenges, but equally it includes some of the United Kingdom's most successful companies. We have much to be proud of in our manufacturing sector. However, people too often talk down manufacturing, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did in his 20-minute speech—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Fabricant: No, he did not.
  Mr. Byers: Some Opposition Members were clearly not listening to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made; but the Official Report will contain his speech.
  934
  I want to examine some success stories in manufacturing, particularly in the sectors that have blossomed because of the Government's initiatives. In aerospace, employment has increased by one fifth. There are almost 14,000 extra jobs in the aerospace industry since 1998.
  Mr. Jack: Will the Secretary of State give way on that industry?
  Mr. Byers: Yes, of course.
  Mr. Jack: BAE Systems in my constituency is facing uncertainty about possible large job losses. The Secretary of State recently visited India. What assurances and guarantees can he give to my aerospace workers that everything possible is being done to enable the United Kingdom and BAE Systems to win an order from the Indian Government for the Hawk aircraft?
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I am conscious of the importance of the Hawk order for his constituents and for those who work for BAE Systems. He is right to say that when I was in India a couple of weeks ago I met a number of Indian Government Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, George Fernandes. One of the issues that I specifically raised was BAE Systems's desire to provide the Hawk aircraft to the Indian air force.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the negotiations have been going on for an inordinate lime. However, I am clear that they are now very close to a successful conclusion. I hope that the two or three relatively minor outstanding issues can be resolved in the near future. It is a significant order if it can be secured. I also know that, if that can be achieved, it will bring a degree of confidence to his constituents about their future employment prospects.
  We shall certainly continue to do all that we can, on a Government to Government level and a Government to industry level, to try to secure that contract. I am sure that it will be secured, but I am also conscious that it needs to be done sooner rather than later. We shall use our best endeavours to that effect, and I shall keep the right hon. Gentleman informed on that important matter. However, there is success in the aerospace industry. I recognise, too, that it is going through structural changes.
  In other sectors, such as fibre optics, which underpins the internet, DTI support in programmes such as LINK has helped to establish the United Kingdom as the European leader. In the past 12 months alone, more than 7,000 new research and development and manufacturing jobs have been announced in the United Kingdom fibre-optic sector.
  Contrary to some perceptions, we have strengths also in the car industry. Since 1997, £3 billion of new investment has been announced and more than 10,000 new jobs created in United Kingdom car manufacturing.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that the Toyota plant is not far from my Lichfield constituency. What can he say about the strategic talks currently being held between Toyota and Ford?
  Mr. Byers: That is a matter for Toyota and Ford, which are commercial organisations, and the hon. Gentleman

  935
  and the right hon. Member for Wells would be the first to criticise me and the Government if we were to interfere in those discussions. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would mention the positive announcement, just a couple of weeks ago, that Toyota is switching production of the Corolla from Japan to Derbyshire, increasing its United Kingdom production by almost one third—to 220,000 vehicles by the end of this year—and creating 300 new jobs as a result. But there is no comment from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is good.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will benefit from that investment, and I am pleased that he now recognises its importance. Jaguar is investing £300 million at Halewood to build the new X-type model. Volkswagen is investing £500 million over five years to increase Bentley production at its site in Crewe.
  There are success stories, then, and the reason is that we are delivering what manufacturing wants: economic stability. If we turn the clock back just 10 years, inflation was in double figures and interest rates were at 15 per cent. The Government will not return to those days, because we saw the damage that was done to manufacturing in our country. That was ignored by the right hon. Member for Wells.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Would my right hon. Friend care to turn the clock back two years, to when the steel company Corus was formed? I noticed that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to imply that the problems facing Corus arose because of the £8 million of the climate change levy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fact that workers in Ebbw Vale are facing redundancy has nothing to do with the climate change levy, and that £8 million is peanuts compared with the £700 million that Corus has handed out as sweeteners to its shareholders; the £900 million that it has appropriated from the worker's pension fund; the £135 that it has wasted in buying up companies abroad, only investing £3 million in this country; the millions of pounds handed out to the sacked chief executive; and the huge payments to former Dutch managers?
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issues facing the steel industry have nothing to do with the climate change levy and everything to do with a company that is determined to destroy an industry that generations of people in my community in Ebbw Vale have built up?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend speaks with passion on behalf of his constituents, and I intend shortly to speak about Corus specifically. He mentioned the £8 million cost to Corus of the climate change levy, referred to by the right hon. Member for Wells as though it were the foundation of the company's problems. My hon. Friend was right to call it peanuts. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of the fact that every 1 pfennig movement in currency between the pound and the deutschmark costs Corus £8 million. When it comes to investment and currency stability, his policy of ruling out for ever joining a single European currency would be the worst policy for manufacturing in the United Kingdom.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend also recall the position under the Tory Government, when 500,000
  936
  jobs were lost in the textiles and clothing sector? Considering the difficult position in the industry at present, including job losses in my constituency, will he reaffirm the Government's policy of working closely with industry to look for new opportunities and to seek to stem job losses—unlike the previous Government, who did nothing whatever and simply sat on their hands?
  Mr. Byers: I can confirm that. As with the steel industry, I want to outline the help that the Government can give to the textiles industry, which is going through restructuring and faces challenges as a result of competition from overseas. I will shortly address those points in detail.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State rightly underlined the significance of currency fluctuations, not only for the steel industry but for manufacturing generally, and the way in which instability militates against long-term development. That being so, should not the Government give much clearer signs of a commitment to enter the euro and to create the circumstances, as a deliberate target of policy, to enable that to happen?
  Mr. Byers: Our policy is very clear. We can see the benefits of joining the single European currency. Transparency of costs, improvements in trade and currency stability are probably the three prime benefits of membership. However, the economic conditions have to be right. That is why we have the five economic tests laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. When those have been met, it will be for Government, for Parliament and for the people to decide. That is a policy that business understands. Business tells me that the worst possible policy would be the one adopted by the Conservative party: to rule out joining a single currency for the lifetime of the next Parliament. It is a policy dictated by dogma. It does not consider the economic prospects of industry and of manufacturing in particular.
  That should not surprise us, however, given the Conservative party's record in regard to manufacturing. The right hon. Member for Wells was very selective about the years that he chose to give as examples. We should look at what happened to manufacturing at the beginning of the 1990s.
  In 1992, there were 7,500 job losses at British Aerospace, including the closure of the firm's Hatfield plant. More than 4,000 jobs were lost with the 1992 closure of the Ravenscraig steel works. There were 6,000 jobs lost with the closure of Rolls-Royce aeroengines in the same year. In 1991–92, 13,000 jobs were lost at GEC, and more than 20,000 were lost at Ferranti in the early 1990s. In 1992 alone, 1,600 metal and engineering companies went bankrupt, as did more than 1,000 textile and clothing manufacturers.
  In total, more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the early 1990s. That is the Tory record.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress, but I shall try and give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.

  937
  The manufacturing sector has told the Government clearly that companies need confidence to invest, and that that requires the right economic climate and stability. That is why, on coming to office, the Government took immediate and decisive action to ensure economic stability and low inflation. Inflation remains around or below the target of 2.5 per cent., and long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 35 years.
  I am sure that Conservative Members would not be content to take the Government's word for that, so I quote David Smith's article in last weekend's edition of The Sunday Times:
  It has been an extraordinary turnaround. Ten years ago Britain's economy was in a state of deep despair. Inflation was in double figures, unemployment climbing ever higher, house prices collapsing and the country over a year away from the light at the end of the longest recession since the war. Now, according to new figures, we can look hack on an economic golden age that shows little sign of coming to an end … Unemployment, at just over 1 m, is at its lowest since 1975, and a third of its level in the early 1990s, with skill shortages a bigger problem than shortages of jobs. Inflation is the lowest since 1976 … in practice the lowest for a long time before that. The government, far from being strapped for cash, has a big budget surplus.
  I know that The Sun newspaper is beloved of many Conservative Members.
  Mr. Bercow: I get it delivered every day.
  Mr. Byers: There is no higher commendation. The newspaper's political editor, Trevor Kavanagh, is one of the country's best. In today's edition, he wrote:
  Britain is the best place in the world to do business, according to a new survey. America is left trailing in second place … The survey by management giant Arthur Andersen and independent analysts GrowthPlus covers 10 nations, and is due to be published tomorrow; but a copy seen by The Sun names Britain the "outright winner". It says
  Our benchmark shows the United Kingdom as being the country that overall provides the most entrepreneur-friendly environment. We can see that the UK nurtures growth through tax incentives.
  That is how The Sun has reported that very important report.
  Sir David Madel rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Laurence Robertson rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a choice, so I shall take a pro-European first and give way to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel). I shall then allow the anti-Europeans in.
  Sir David Madel: Will the Secretary of State say why, if everything is so wonderful and the UK is such a good place to invest in, we cannot persuade General Motors to continue building cars in Luton?
  Mr. Byers: I have been in touch with the company to see whether it will reconsider the decision, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the decision also affects plants in Germany and north America. It was not just a United
  938
  Kingdom issue that was being addressed; it was a global restructuring that General Motors had embarked upon. I hope that it will reconsider that decision and will consult its work force appropriately on how it can see itself through the current difficulties.
  General Motors has a responsibility to the work force at Luton. I think that the House understands the anger felt by the workers in that plant, who entered into a partnership with the company, a partnership that the company has now torn up unilaterally. The Government understand the workers' concern and share the anger and frustration felt by the work force in Luton. We shall continue, in the appropriate way, to make representations to the company to try to get that decision changed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way on the question of Vauxhall.
  Mr. Miller: It is not just the work force who are angry. Many in this House are extremely angry over the way in which General Motors has treated the work force at both Luton and Ellesmere Port. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that he would continue to put pressure on the company. I urge him to make representations at a very early date, because we are now coming to the stage at which, if the company does not shift its position soon, it will be too late. It is very urgent that the Government bring the maximum pressure to bear on the company.
  Mr. Byers: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall be doing precisely that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I give way on the question of Vauxhall again.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: What my constituents want to know is this: does the Secretary of State expect Vauxhall in Luton to close?
  Mr. Byers: Ultimately that will be a commercial decision for General Motors to take. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of that. What we can do is to make the case. That is exactly what the Government have been doing, and we shall continue to do it.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but let me make some progress first.
  I want to address the concerns of two sectors raised by my hon. Friends: textiles and Corus. I should also like to say a word about Nissan.
  The right hon. Member for Wells accused the Government of inaction. I can say that, in relation to Nissan and many other sectors of manufacturing, we are doing all we can to ensure that when companies take important commercial decisions they are aware of the benefits that will come from investing in the United Kingdom. We secured European approval for the £40 million grant aid to Nissan in record time. When I met the chief executive of Nissan just 10 days ago in

  939
  Tokyo, I made clear to him in a face-to-face meeting the importance of this investment not just for Sunderland, but for the United Kingdom. I hope that when he takes a long-term look at the prospects for Sunderland and for Nissan he will recognise that the right decision must be to build the new Micra in the north-east of England.
  With regard to textiles, there is no getting away from the fact that this is a difficult time for parts of the textile industry. Owing to globalisation, new technology and restructuring, the textile industry in particular is under significant pressure. That is why the Government have introduced a package of measures worth over £10 million for the industry as a whole to assist it through this period. It includes measures to help exporters, to support design talent and to promote and develop new technological developments for the industry.
  The plan is designed to enable the industry to adapt to the challenges of the knowledge economy. It includes Government support for the development and exploitation of technical textile materials. It provides programmes to help retrain workers who might be affected by decisions that have been taken on closures.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Byers: I should like to finish the point on textiles.
  There is a very important element here that people lose sight of. Because the textile industry is made up of many relatively small factories and plants, the level of support that the Government give to individual factories or individual companies is often seen as quite small compared with very large grants such as the one I have just mentioned in relation to Nissan in the north-east of England.
  I have looked back at the support that we have given since we took office in May 1997 specifically for the textile industry, by way of regional selective assistance. That support has been in small am mints of money but given to a large number of companies. In total, more than £40 million has been given to textile companies. That has safeguarded or created 10,000 jobs in the sector and has led to investment by the companies of a further £250 million. That is a good example of how Government support of £40 million to the textile industry has triggered investment of £250 million in the sector, thereby safeguarding or creating 10,000 jobs.
  Mr. David Drew: The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) did not, of course, mention the Conservative party's aim of abolishing regional development agencies. My right hon. Friend knows that, in Dursley in my constituency, Lister-Petter has been kept going by the intervention of the South West regional development agency. Thanks to the help of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Deputy Prime Minister, that is indicative of how supply-side changes are as important as demand-side changes. However, the Conservative party is pledged to remove regional development agencies. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a good and important point about the role that RDAs can play. That is an exceptionally good example of a positive and proactive approach that has led to employment opportunities for
  940
  many people in his constituency that would no longer exist had the RDA not been available to act as a catalyst to ensure that those jobs were protected.
  Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's earlier remarks about the euro were woefully inadequate. Given that the governing council of the European central bank comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxembourger and a Portuguese, and that the European treaties as drafted specifically prohibit national Governments or Parliaments from seeking to influence its decisions, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is so eager to hand over power for the running of the British economy to people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom it would be illegal to seek to persuade of the British point of view?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has just made what I am sure he considers is a powerful argument for never joining the single European currency. Of course, that is not his party's policy. The Conservatives say that it does not agree with the structure but that they will rule it out for only five years and then we might join. They cannot have it both ways. Our party believes in joining a successful single currency, provided the economic conditions are right. That is the clear policy of the Labour party and of the Government, and I happen to believe that it is the right policy.
  Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of his interest in intervention when large-scale job losses are forecast. Does he agree that there is also a problem with smaller-scale job losses, such as the closure of Cuprinol in Frome? It is a successful brand, acquired by ICI, now relocated to Slough. The closure of another company, Bussmann and Cooper, means 430 job losses. In a town the size of Frome, that has a huge impact. Does he agree that large national and multinational companies should have some regard for the loyalty of the work forces who built their factories and made their brands a success when they make their strategic decisions?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman touches on two important points. One is the important role that relatively small factories in the grand scale of things can play within particular communities. He is right that the loss of a few hundred jobs in a small town can have a devastating impact, and we need to be acutely aware of that. Secondly, it is short-termism at its worst when multinationals, almost as a kneejerk reaction, close down smaller subsidiaries. Long-term planning is often the best way forward, and sometimes short-term decisions are taken which are not in the companies' long-term interests.
  I should like to address the point about Corus raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). As we meet this afternoon to discuss manufacturing, we are all acutely aware that thousands of workers in the steel industry are extremely concerned about their prospects. Last year, Corus replaced its joint chief executives because the two of them were not prepared to adopt a short-term approach to the problems faced by the company and the industry. They were not prepared to embark on plant closures and cuts in capacity. There is no doubt that Corus faces a challenging period.

  941
  Trading conditions in steel are difficult and the company will need to take steps to address the problems it faces. However, Corus needs to be aware that it will stand condemned of short-termism at its worst if its response is to close plants with the loss of thousands of jobs.
  In the first nine months of trading as Corus, there was an operating loss of £96 million—clearly a state of affairs that any company could not ignore, but Corus is particularly affected by movements in exchange rates. Its operating profits closely track the sterling-deutschmark exchange. Little wonder that that is the case, when a 10 pfennig movement in the exchange rate with the pound affects operating profits by £80 million one way or the other.
  The House needs to consider, as does Corus, what has happened over the past two months. In November, the pound was trading at DM3.26. Yesterday, the rate closed at DM3.06, or a fall of more than 20 pfennigs—resulting, by Corus' own calculations, in a saving to the company of some £160 million in just two months. The £8 million climate change levy pales into insignificance beside that. The Tory party is trying to play politics with the futures of a crucial industry, communities and thousands of workers.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Earlier, the Minister accepted that the £8 million climate change levy was peanuts compared with what Corus has done to the company. Does he accept that £96 million is also peanuts compared with the £1.5 billion that Corus has asset-stripped from the company in different ways over the past two years?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has an early-day motion on the Order Paper that makes highly effective points about the way the company has been operating. Over the next few days, many people will be turning their attention to the way in which Corus has been conducting itself in recent times.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am most grateful for the work being done by my right hon. Friend for steelworkers. Does he agree that Britain's manufacturing capability could be hugely impeded if Corus continues to dismantle its capability in Britain? I cannot see how a nation can be great when a company such as Corus takes away one of its foundation industries. Steel is greatness and a strategic industry.
  Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend has been a great champion of the steel industry in general and of the Shotton works in particular over more years than I should remind him of. Starting in 1973, he brought delegations to the House to argue strongly the case for the steel industry. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the industry's significance, which makes it important that Corus should not take short-term decisions over the next few days but look to the long term.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that this country's steel industry has a long-term viable future. Its workers have shown a long-term commitment by improving productivity dramatically in recent years. Steelworkers and the Government call on Corus to deliver the same level of commitment to the industry at this time. Corus should not be defeatist. It should not embark on a
  942
  short-term approach but plan for the long term, in which there is a viable future for the steel industry in the United Kingdom.
  There is no doubt in the Government's mind that manufacturing has an important role. We have done much already to support manufacturing by providing economic stability and we continue to do so. Manufacturing matters to this Government and to our country. Once the cradle of the industrial revolution, we can now be at the heart of the knowledge economy at the beginning of the 21st century. Manufacturing faces considerable change, driven by globalisation and the spread of new technology. That calls for an active Government who work positively with industry to ensure that our people can manage the process of change and seize the new opportunities that will come from it.
  There will be difficult decisions, but we will face them, working with the communities and the industries affected to build a new future where that is necessary. That is the challenge. To meet it, we need stability, not a return to boom and bust, and full employment, not mass unemployment; we need to invest in the building blocks for a dynamic industry—not the cuts proposed by the Opposition. We have a commitment to build strong communities, not a belief that there is no such thing as society. We are a Government on the side of the people, not a Government who leave them to the market to fend for themselves.
  That is the approach of the Government and I commend it to the House.
  4.30 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: The motion helpfully identifies a real problem. I broadly subscribe to the view that the British economy is generally in good shape in respect of inflation and growth in output and employment. However, it is clear that in the parts of our economy involved in international trade—notably manufacturing, but also agriculture, trade and services such as tourism—there is great distress, some of which is typified by the events at Llanwern today. It is right that we focus on that. I agree with the motion's highlighting—albeit in a rather exaggerated way—of the problems and costs of regulation.
  None the less, aspects of the motion puzzle me. The punch line is a call for an industrial strategy. That sounds like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) during his heyday in the 1960s; if there was a problem in industry, one created an industrial strategy. One of the better lessons of the Conservative years is that industrial strategy is created by companies and not by Ministers and Government officials.

  I am also puzzled by the fact that the motion specifically highlights the loss of 300,000 jobs in manufacturing industry. That invites the obvious riposte: according to House of Commons figures, 3 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since 1979. That process is continuous; it is not inherently a matter to be alarmed about, because 4 million jobs have been created in other sectors. Because of productivity growth, manufacturing employment in most industrial economies is declining. The matter is important only if one believes that manufacturing is fundamentally different from the rest of the economy.
  I think that the first person to advocate that theory with any conviction was Marx; he believed that manufacturing creates surplus value and that services are rather parasitic.

  943
  However, we no longer believe that argument these days—I should certainly be surprised if such a belief was held by a right-wing party. It would surprise me if the Conservatives held that view—especially given the fact that the share of manufacturing in the United States economy is about half that in Japan and no one could seriously suggest that the United States is a less successful country than Japan.
  Manufacturing is important in this context because it is the largest sector of our economy involved in international trade. It shares its problems with farming, tourism and other traded sectors. It would be helpful if we could get away from the mechanical distinction between manufacturing and other parts of the economy. I often refer to the Twickenham shipbuilding industry, because although we have no shipyards in Twickenham, much of the value-added in the industry is created in London suburbs by designers sitting at computers. With information technology, manufacturing and service industries have become completely interconnected.
  My starting point is slightly different from that of the Conservatives. In many respects, the British economy is doing relatively well—certainly in regard to the past and to comparable economies—but it is extremely unbalanced: one large sector, involved in international trade, is seriously under-performing. We can see that in various ways.
  The investment indicators for industry from the CBI and others suggest that manufacturing investment declined by about 15 per cent. last year. That has not remotely been cancelled by this year's moderate recovery. The CBI's evidence on investment intention shows a continued negative outlook in industry. Although there is plenty of evidence that output growth is relatively strong in the whole economy, it is below 1 per cent. in manufacturing, and has been for the past few years.
  There are two basic reasons why the traded bits of the economy are under-performing in many ways, and they have already been mentioned in the debate. At the centre of the Conservative party's argument is the idea that the problem is entirely caused by regulation. Clearly, that is an issue, but if regulation is the problem, why is not the same pain being experienced in other parts of the economy? After all, the working time directive and similar regulations apply across the board, but we are discussing the fact that a key sector of the economy is under-performing relative to the others. Nevertheless, it is useful to reflect on some of the problems that regulation brings.
  I have an example that explains, with some clarity, why the issue exists. Last week, I was approached by representatives of the compressor industry. They are the people who make pneumatic drills and equipment with pneumatic action—an important part of industry. Workers are genuinely concerned about a health problem in the industry. If people work with high-pressure drills, they experience extreme vibrations, which affect the nervous system and their hearing. Clearly, strong health protection is needed. As a result of that problem, the Health and Safety Executive recommended that a regulation should be introduced to put a specific quantitative limit on the amount of vibration that could occur.
  Full of enthusiasm, the Government ran off to the European Union and got all the other member states to sign up to a directive, binding across Europe. It was then
  944
  pointed out that they had gone about the directive in an unhelpful way and that the same objectives could be achieved at far less cost through a different way of defining the regulation. Obviously, they had not consulted the companies.
  The British officials set off, chasing around Europe trying to withdraw the directive that they had initiated, but I understand that it is now too late and the directive will come into effect, unnecessarily costing industry about £2 billion over 10 years. The symptoms are always there—no consultation and a lack of proper impact assessment—although in this case a study showed that the costs outweighed the benefits by about 7:1. However, such things happen every week, which is a real problem.
  Reference has been made to the climate change levy, but it has not yet had any impact because it has not yet happened. We are stuck with a rather sterile controversy, because the argument is that some people want to do nothing about climate change and the specific proposal of the climate change levy. The Government know that there are other ways to act and that if they had introduced, by stages, an upstream carbon tax, applied throughout the economy, related to the carbon content of product, they could have achieved all their objectives without the discriminatory burden on manufacturing industry, but they pressed ahead with it.
  I acknowledge that there are regulatory problems and costs, which are often insensitively applied, but none of us would seriously argue that that is why manufacturing and the rest of the traded bits of the economy are now struggling in a way that the service sector is not. What is the problem? As the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry briefly suggested, the problem relates specifically to the workings of the exchange rates, but not, as the Conservative spokesman said, simply to the euro-sterling exchange rate. Korea is the steel industry's main, efficient competitor, and there has been an enormous divergence between the appreciation of sterling and the depreciation of the Korean won. That is why Korean steel massively undercuts British steel; it is largely due to the enormous movements in the exchange rate.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the fluctuations in exchange rates and the effects thereof, but he cannot be allowed so speedily to skip away from the subject of regulation. Given that more than 99 per cent. of British companies employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for 57 per cent. of the private work force and that they produce two fifths of national output, can he tell us whether he signs up to the deregulatory agenda that the Conservative party has announced? In particular, can he tell the House, with all the authority of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, what assessment he has made of the American Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act?
  Dr. Cable: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well read and has digested my report on unnecessary regulation. It has been endorsed and enthusiastically supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, no less, not just because it sets out an appropriate deregulatory agenda, but because it does something that he and his colleagues rarely do, which is to be specific. My party has identified 25 major categories of unnecessary regulation. Clearly, regulation

  945
  is needed to protect workers, consumers and the environment, but some of it is unnecessary, and we have tried to identify where that is the case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to highlight that matter.
  The enormous divergence in exchange rates is not simply a matter of the respective rates of the euro against the dollar and sterling. Figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that sterling has appreciated since, I think, 1995, to the extent that Britain has now lost competitiveness, in terms of the unit cost of labour, by about 45 per cent. However, Korea has gained in competitiveness by about 20 per cent. The eurozone as a whole has gained in competitiveness by 15 or 20 per cent. Those are enormous margins. No conceivable improvement in productivity at a factory level will offset that, no matter how hard working the employees or inspired the management.
  The central issue is how we make exchange rates stable so that we stop the divergence, and some hon. Members have touched on that matter. That consideration goes to the heart of our position on the European currency. When we argued two years ago that British industry would incur costs because of the lack of clarity on economic and monetary union, we were laughed at and told that we were crying wolf. However, we now have concrete examples to support our stance.
  The Nissan management made it clear that its decision to locate new production in either Sunderland or France will be heavily based on being confident that Britain will enter the common euro area. It specifically stated that any industrial incentives or grants will be a secondary consideration. More important in the long term was the statement by Ford of Europe a couple of weeks ago in which it said that unless it is clear that Britain will be part of the European monetary union area by 2006, it will not remain in this country. That employer directly provides 50,000 jobs, and that number can be doubled or trebled if one considers its subsidiary activities. Those are clear and explicit statements by important manufacturers.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the report by the Institute of Directors, which comments on the relationship between sterling and the euro. It says that the two currencies are merely ships that pass in the night. Consequently, will he argue, as he is at the moment, for our entry into EMU when the euro is strong and the pound is weak and, accordingly, British manufacturing is competitive?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman might know that I co-authored a report that received considerable publicity. The group was chaired by the Liberal Democrat MEP, Christopher Huhne, and involved members of the Monetary Policy Committee. It set out what an appropriate competitive exchange rate would be for the United Kingdom. I have read the report by the Institute of Directors. I do not agree with it, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to a more authoritative and less polemical organisation, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It argued within the past few weeks that clear evidence exists of a high level of convergence with the British economy.
  My criticism of the Government is that, although they are clearly carrying out tests on such matters in private, they will not discuss them with us, perhaps for good
  946
  political reasons. However, a mature debate would certainly help to clarify the position of the British manufacturing industry. We need to discuss whether we are converging, which was the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and to consider the evidence, but we are not doing that; there is no public debate. The Government have been remiss in that sense.
  I approach the issue by acknowledging that, in many respects in the conduct of macro-economic policy, the Government can reasonably claim—even though four years is a very short time in economic history—that the problems of boom and bust have been substantially reduced, except in respect of the boom and bust associated with the exchange rate. That problem is still with us and it is severe. That is why we are debating the substantial blows to manufacturing industry that have occurred recently.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Ken Purchase: Manufacturing is doing well if not doing great, which is what we want it to do.
  We are debating a Conservative party motion and my first thought was what a brass neck it was for the Tories to table a motion about manufacturing industry. That seems a contradiction in terms. After 18 years in which great damage was done to British manufacturing, Conservatives Members come to the House today to castigate the record of the Labour Government.
  Let me appeal across the divide and remind Conservative Members that, during that dreadful period for British manufacturing under their governance, a Minister eventually came into office who cared about British manufacturing and exports. I refer to Richard Needham, who was the sole salvation of any semblance of a Conservative party policy for manufacturing and the important role that it plays in exports. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade who has not just carried on with that work, but brought to it an enthusiasm worthy of the exporting traditions on which this country has depended and continues to depend.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) compared the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. I remind him that the USA exports about 7 per cent. of its gross domestic product and, strangely, has done for most of the past century. Over the same period, the United Kingdom has exported about 20 per cent. of its GDP, and the overwhelming majority of our exports have been manufactured products. We cannot compare this country with the USA and Japan, because we are still very dependent or the manufacturing sector, which contributes more to our balance of payments than any other industry or set vice sector in this country.
  British Trade International, which is now Trade Partners UK, has made a good start to boosting British exports, especially those from the manufacturing sector. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry on the work that they are doing to make joined-up Government a reality for the policy on exports. I know that many have tried that before, but we now take a more coherent view and take a more sensible policy approach to the issue.
  I hope that, after the debate, the Conservative party will rediscover some of its former glory and recall the time when it greatly assisted British manufacturing industry.

  947
  Many of the great industries established in the 19th and 20th centuries were set up by the Conservative party's friends—the people we call "the captains of industry".
  We need a consensus on the vital question of industry. I unashamedly appeal to Conservative Members to join us in creating coherent and comprehensive policies for manufacturing that will assist our exporting efforts.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should have a consensus on what we can do to improve manufacturing industry, so will he have a word with his colleagues about the climate change levy? He must admit that it will have an enormous impact on manufacturing industry in this country.
  Mr. Purchase: I accept that manufacturers in this country and others complain when any extra costs are added to their bottom line and I understand the reasons for that. I believe that my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are working hard to find ways in which to take account of the understandable concerns and sentiments expressed by manufacturers, especially those that are already highly energy efficient, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments and recognise that more work is needed. None the less, I support the climate change levy: we have to take some action in that respect, not only for our own sake, but for the sake of our neighbours worldwide.
  We have developed an impressive toolkit with which to assist the regeneration of manufacturing. Much of the selective assistance that has been made available is doing good work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that in recent years £60 million has been made available via that route. That is welcome. I am not one of those who believes that industry can be left to its own devices. We live in an increasingly competitive world in which every other country values its manufacturing industry and does all it can to develop it. Woe betide Britain if we do not take similar—indeed, better—action to support our own manufacturing industry.
  In this country we have a significant problem regarding investment. We have a system of stock markets, shareholding and company profits that defies the logic that is applied by many overseas companies within their own countries, whereby they retain profits for long-term investment. The pressure on our managers is to deliver dividends. There has to be a change of mind to ensure fairer distribution between distributed and retained profits—and, I say to my Treasury Ministers, to ensure the best possible treatment of those retained profits. Only in that way will we get self-generated investment in our industries.
  That has not happened in Britain in the past. Often, hon. Members who visit old manufacturing companies in their constituencies see machinery that must have been fetched up from the sea bed after the first world war—it is pretty dreadful. On the other hand, we have good companies that have modernised and invested because they recognise that only investment in the manufacturing process can bring the competitive edge that they need to compete successfully on world markets.
  In British industry—perhaps throughout the whole of Britain—management is not really our strong point. More needs to be done in terms of management education and training. Not that long ago, a management guru who used
  948
  to control ICI was asked whether his managers were on MBA programmes and taking other opportunities to improve their management skills. He replied, "MBA programmes? I'd be pleased if any of them could read a balance sheet!" Such a comment from a director of a major company about middle and upper management in British industry is damning indeed. We have not made the progress that we need in our universities and colleges in terms of developing MBA courses and related management skills courses.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important subject in talking about youngsters taking MBAs and so on, but does he agree that perhaps too many people take that route and not enough take up industrial training, given that many companies are finding it extremely difficult to recruit either trainees or trained people?
  Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman hits on a very good point, to which I was about to turn. If proper leadership and management are lacking, the potential of employees—even of those who have the best technical skills—is never realised. That is part of the sad story of the failure of British manufacturing: leadership has been lacking. We have been responsible for some of the finest inventions that the world has ever seen, but we have failed to bring them to the marketplace. That has usually happened because of lack of money for innovation, lack of vision among those who should be leading and damned poor management at plant level. We must attend to management and marketing skills. When one talks about marketing to some managers, one might as well be speaking Esperanto. Above-the-line and below-the-line campaigns mean nothing. It is pathetic that we often have good products, workers and even investment, but still do not go to the marketplace with all our guns blazing. We must take those matters very seriously.
  We need managers with technical and financial skills. Too often, our best engineers are promoted on to boards where they find themselves completely outmanoeuvred by accountants who do not know anything about the fundamentals of engineering. Such people might know an awful lot about the bottom line of the company without understanding the need to modernise and to build up skills and capital investment.
  In the three or four minutes that remain, I should like to turn to two pressing matters in my constituency. I shall not apologise for speaking about them, as they illustrate the difficulties about which I have been speaking: lack of leadership, poor investment and other such problems. There have been massive redundancies in the Goodyear tyre factory in Wolverhampton. I waive towards the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) at this point. People who were made redundant and do not have transferable skills will not get jobs, but those with high skills that are transferable will do so. There are massive skills shortages that we have not properly or fully addressed.
  Workers at the Chubb safe company met yesterday to complain about the fact that the company has been taken over yet again, for the third time in just a few years, and that the manufacture of safes is now to cease. Chubb safes have the greatest reputation in the world for quality. Indeed, the company still makes the finest safes in the world, but it is being closed down. Perhaps the safe

  949
  making will be transferred to Indonesia, after which it might be brought back to Wolverhampton, so that the safes can be rebadged with the words "Chubb Wolverhampton" to suit the insurance markets. It is an absolute disgrace.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not now in his place; I know that he has to take a rest from time to time. However, I plead with him to recognise that this country needs a different takeover and competition law regime. We also need a regime within the plants and the factories to ensure that it is not easy come, easy go. Those who take over and buy companies must give a commitment to the workers and ensure that their rights are properly protected. I know that we have made considerable moves on the reform of trade union law. We are going in the right direction, but we have to do more and do it more quickly.
  The biggest grouse from Chubb workers in Wolverhampton last night concerned the reason why Chubb—or Gunnebo, as it is now called—could move out of Britain just like that, when companies that try to close down in Sweden or any other European Community country must adhere to specific processes and consult in good time with their workers and staff. We need such laws here. If it is right to ensure a level playing field in finance and so on, we should also ensure one for workers' rights, so that our workers can compete fairly and properly with the rest of the world. If they are given that opportunity, they will not fail us.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, who I think represents Wolverhampton, South-East.
  Mr. Purchase: North-East.
  Mr. Robertson: Sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who demonstrated a great knowledge of industry and its failings. He referred in particular to some of the weak management in industry. I do not need to declare an interest, but I worked in industry for most of the 18 years of Tory rule to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall return to that subject shortly.
  I worked for the textile industry for many years. It faced many pressures and its decline is sad. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that its management was not all that it should have been. We must accept that if manufacturing industry is to return to, or at least approach, its former glories it must be managed better than in the past. That does not apply to all manufacturing industry, some of which is managed extremely well.
  I disagree with the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he referred to 18 years of mismanagement by the Tory Administration. I worked in industry in the 1980s and in the 1970s. Anyone who criticises the Conservative Government's record on industry should compare the two decades. In the 1970s, some disgraceful things went on; it is no wonder that so many jobs were lost. Jobs were lost in the 1980s and the 1990s, but many were also lost in the 1970s.
  950
  Worse than the terrible demonstrations of union power in the 1970s was management's fear of managing. That emphasises how desperate matters were in industry in those days. I am proud that the Conservative Government introduced changes to trade union law and other changes that transformed industry. I would dispute the case with anyone who claimed that the predicament of manufacturing was worse after 1979 than before. It is simply not true.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, but he cannot be here all the time. His speech was contradictory. He referred to many job losses that happened in 1991–92 in what he accurately described as a recession. It was a terrible recession, which affected the businesses that I was trying to help. The small business that I ran then had a difficult time in 1991, which was probably the worst year of my working life. I therefore fully appreciate the pain.
  The Conservative Government participated in a European experiment called the exchange rate mechanism, which was a disaster from which they never recovered. The Secretary of State would say that the right convergence criteria did not exist then, and that we went in at the wrong rate. There is no such thing as the wrong rate—whatever the rate, it was right but the system was wrong. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the pound is now even stronger against some currencies. Joining the single currency would therefore lock us into the wrong system for ever: not for Christmas, not for a few weeks, not for two years—the period after which we left the ERM with great pain—but for ever.
  The Secretary of State listed all the companies that he claims have brought jobs to this country—if they have, I welcome that. He quoted from The Sun; I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) takes it daily. He quoted the words:
  Britain is the best place in the world to do business.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman contemplates taking us into the single currency when there is no need to do that. If we joined, we would lose control over our interest rates, and be in exactly the same position as we were in the 1991 recession, which the Secretary of State condemned. I stress that his words are contradictory and simply do not make sense.
  I want to consider one or two other matters, which I raised in an Adjournment debate some months ago, such is my interest in manufacturing industry. I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of manufacturing industry to the country. I shall deal with jobs shortly.
  The Secretary of State rightly referred to the industrial revolution. It happened a long time ago, but it was important because it created wealth. When manufacturing developed in terms of mechanisation, automation and productivity, we all became better off. We all know how much cheaper electrical goods are now, relatively speaking, than they were some years ago. Productivity improvements in the manufacturing rather than the service sector mean that we are more prosperous and have more goods.
  Sadly, as has been said, many manufacturing jobs have been lost. In 1950, 8.3 million people were employed in manufacturing; now the figure is only 4 million at the most. Whereas in 1950, 41 per cent. of the work force were in manufacturing jobs, only 16 per cent. are in such jobs now. That is partly, but not wholly, due to the

  951
  improvements in productivity, mechanisation and automation that I mentioned. The manufacturing share of gross domestic product has also declined, from 37 per cent. in 1950 to 20 per cent. today.
  I have mentioned my concern about the textile industry. It remains, but it dates from the time when I lived in the north-west. Now that I represent Tewkesbury, I am particularly concerned about the aerospace industry, although it is doing well and receiving many orders. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East mentioned takeovers and mergers, which I think the Government should consider in detail. There were competition worries when British Aerospace merged with Marconi Electronic Systems not long ago, and I wish that they had been examined more thoroughly.
  When noting the big orders that the industry may receive, will the Government also give careful attention to the assistance that foreign Governments give companies in their countries? I know that we have competition laws throughout Europe, but I am not entirely convinced that they are being obeyed.
  There are different ways of helping industries. There is the launch aid project; and Governments in other countries, especially France, provide subsidies and other help. The Government should be aware of that. If we are to have a level playing field in Europe, we must have a level playing field in every sense of the term. I am not sure that our aerospace companies receive the same kind of help as aerospace companies in other countries. That is of great concern to aerospace companies in my constituency—Smiths Industries, Mossier Dowty, Dowty Aerospace Propellers, Ultra Hydraulics and others. Smaller companies supplying those firms are also very concerned.
  In an intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I mentioned the problems experienced by many manufacturing companies in recruiting both trainees and experienced staff. I understand from figures supplied by the House of Commons Library that about 48 per cent. of school leavers are going on to university. I am pleased that many people now go to university—I did not, and I greatly regret it—but when so many are being educated, and industry and, for instance, the technical side of the national health service cannot attract staff, something is not quite right.
  The Government can do many things to help the manufacturing industries, but the biggest thing they can do is stay out of the way. We have heard a great deal about competition with companies in Europe, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the difficulties of competing with companies further afield—I think that he mentioned Korea. Therefore, the last thing we need is the Government piling more and more regulation and taxes on to industry in this country. That is the most stupid thing that anyone could imagine.
  The Government have already introduced the climate change levy, as it is euphemistically called. It is actually a tax on energy, and many companies have no option but to use the energy sources involved. If one is deeply concerned about the environment, as I am, and wants to persuade people not to do something, one should provide them with an alternative rather dim tax them. In the absence of an alternative, they will not stop doing what they are doing, no matter how much one taxes them.
  952
  If we have not realised that in relation to the duty that is added to petrol, it is about time that we started to learn a bit more quickly.
  Many of the other laws and taxes that the Government have imposed on businesses have hit industry particularly hard. Such regulations and taxes should be abolished. If the Government are serious about helping the manufacturing industries, the best thing they could do is to stop hindering them by imposing more taxes and laws, which is the last thing they need.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House so soon after being returned as the Member for Falkirk, West.
  Hon. Members might know that my predecessor, Mr. Dennis Canavan, continues to serve the Falkirk, West constituency in his new capacity as the Member of the Scottish Parliament for our area. That adds an extra element of interest to my job and to my new professional life. I notice that in his maiden speech, Mr. Canavan referred to his predecessor as someone who was very independent-minded. That was true, and it is fair to say that during his own career in the House, Mr. Canavan emulated his predecessor in considerable style.
  Mr. Canavan made many contributions while he was here, most notably perhaps on issues of international development and foreign affairs. He also argued the case strongly and vigorously for the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament. His career here followed an arguable logic, and he is now in the appropriate place. I look forward to developing a good, solid working relationship with such an experienced parliamentarian over the coming months and years.
  The manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom is important to the people of Falkirk, West, as it is to everyone else in the UK. Another of my predecessors, now the noble Lord Ewing, referred in 1971 to the Falkirk area—in which my present constituency is located—as solely an iron town. He was referring to the ironworks that provided a great deal of employment in the area over the years, and that led to "Falkirk" being stamped on many iron objects across the world today, including cannon in India and Pakistan and the engine blocks of many ships—some still sailing, some long out of service.
  Since 1971, in just one generation, the ironworks of Falkirk has been in decline, like the mining industry of central Scotland, and has now closed. Unemployment in my constituency is therefore a considerable enemy today. However, it has fallen sharply in the past few years, and continues to do so, primarily for two reasons. First, some of the secondary industries, the manufacturing industries related to the former iron industry, continue to be very successful—most notably Alexanders, the bus builder, which maintains a strong export order book and whose buses will soon be seen on the streets of New York for the first time.
  Although unemployment is still a problem in Falkirk, and there is a great deal further to go, there has been a sharp decline recently. The second reason for that is the expansion of service industries, particularly telecommunications, east along the central Scottish belt towards and beyond Falkirk. Very soon, a new telecoms centre will be established in Falkirk, providing some 700 jobs. That is clearly greatly to be welcomed.

  953
  In both industrial sectors, the people of Falkirk are responding well to the new challenges of change. We are extremely well served in that by our local tertiary education institution, Falkirk college, which I believe is a college of the first order. The challenge for individuals and for colleges such as Falkirk is to ensure that workers and future workers develop strong core literacy, numeracy and technological awareness skills, which will enable them to compete on the job market, enable the local economy to compete and, ultimately, enable the national economy to compete on the world market.
  Equally, employers have a responsibility to ensure that they involve themselves in that local and national economic and human development. That means taking a close interest in the content of the courses taught in our schools and colleges and also involves the way in which employers run their firms. That means intelligent governance based on sound partnership with the work force, unions and, of course, the local community.
  Stretching the indulgence of the House a tad further, may I refer to local heritage in Falkirk, West, which is important because it provides a great many jobs? Falkirk is the home of perhaps Scotland's finest municipal park, Callendar park, and the Antonine wall built by the Romans runs the length of the constituency. The same geographical logic that led to its construction also led to two famous engagements—famous in Scotland, at least. The battles of Falkirk took place in the Jacobite period and, much earlier, in the time of William Wallace.
  In addition, and on a more contemporary note, my constituency is unique in Scotland, and possibly the United Kingdom, in having not one nor two but three senior football teams and two junior teams. One team, Falkirk FC, is, I hope, about to get a brand new stadium.
  Added to all that will be the Falkirk wheel. Many hon. Members may not have heard of it, but, when it is completed next year, it will represent one of the finest engineering achievements of the early 21st century. The Falkirk wheel will connect two canals that do not quite meet. They run from east to west—or west to east, depending on the direction in which people travel—across Scotland. People will be able to sail from one to the other, although I do not know whether I should call what people do in boats that go along canals sailing; and, again depending on the direction in which people travel, they will be either lifted or dropped 130 ft in one smooth motion. That remarkable achievement will add considerably to the economic life and physical landscape of Falkirk, West. I am sure that every Member present will want to see the wheel, and I can organise a visit should Members so choose.
  The people of Falkirk, West look forward to the developing 21st century with considerable optimism, but never complacency, especially in respect of jobs and our manufacturing, engineering and service industries. I am proud to have been allowed to make my maiden speech on such an important topic, and I thank hon. Members for the way in which they have received me.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a privilege to take part in this powerful debate, which has featured good contributions from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton,
  954
  North-East (Mr. Purchase), who always speaks on such matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). In particular, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who made his maiden speech. I shall take up his invitation to see the big wheel of Falkirk as I am a keen narrow boater; in May, I am going off to the Llangollen canal. I believe that the canals connected by the Falkirk wheel link Edinburgh to Glasgow, or, as he might put it, Glasgow to Edinburgh, depending on the direction in which people happen to travel.
  The hon. Gentleman had a military career before being elected and his experience will be useful to the House. He mentioned that his predecessor was independent-minded. I hope that he will be too and will eventually drift down to the Bench below the Gangway to sit next to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), where truly independent-minded Members sit. I note that the Government Whip is looking rather nervous at the prospect.
  As I said, it is rather disappointing that events earlier today may overshadow the importance of our debate. None the less, it is a particularly important debate. The Secretary of State said over and over as a mantra, "manufacturing matters". He tried to back up the fact that the Labour party and Government care about manufacturing by quoting from this morning's edition of The Sun. He sometimes quotes from that newspaper, but it is interesting that he decided not to quote from today's front page.
  The Secretary of State made the point that the climate change levy is peanuts. He may think so, but that is not what the industry says. Car manufacturing in the United Kingdom is at a crucial point in its history. I have been in the Chamber for the past few hours—as we all have—so I do not know wt ether a decision has been made yet by the owners of Nissan. That decision is important: workers at the Nissan Sunderland plant may hear shortly that they have won a key contract, which would safeguard thousands of jobs. However, if members of the Nissan board have voted today that they will site the new Micra plant in France, that will mean huge job losses. That will affect not just the 4,900 workers in Sunderland, but everyone working in the ailing UK car industry. I do not share the Secretary of State's optimism.
  We have already seen the closure of the Ford car manufacturing plant in Dagenham, which was announced only a few weeks ago. It seems almost certain that the Vauxhall plant at Luton will close. When the Secretary of State was asked in the Chamber whether he envisaged closure of the Luton plant, he could not answer. He gave a cry that is common among Ministers—"Not me, guv: not my responsibility"—and said that that would be a commercial decision. However, the climate that the Government are creating for car manufacturing is influencing those decisions.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sad that he was using his influence to try to persuade Vauxhall to keep its plant in Luton open. I certainly encourage my right hon. Friend in that.
  Mr. Fabricant: That is the least that I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman. However, at the same

  955
  time, he says that the matter has nothing to do with him: the two statements are in direct conflict with one another and, frankly, make no sense at all.
  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that the current rate of output in car manufacturing is disappointing. It says that that is
  partly due to a lot of plant restructuring programmes.
  It continues:
  In the short-term, things are not looking good.
  That is primarily because of the climate change levy, about which I spoke a little earlier.
  Martin Temple of the Engineering Employers Federation said:
  We have never opposed the need for action on climate change, but believe the Levy to be one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times.
  Martin Temple is right, and if people want to know why, it is because of a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in his opening speech. A firm such as Sony, which is far-reaching and green-conscious and has already invested money in making its plant one of the healthiest and safest in Europe, will still pay the climate change levy and will receive no refund.
  It makes no sense at all to put companies in that position. Such an arrangement acts as a disincentive for firms such as Sony that want to play a real part in the community of nations which seeks to enhance our lives and those of future generations. The levy is a disincentive for those firms to invest in plant that minimises emissions of greenhouse gases.
  Nick Turner of Ernst and Young's environmental and sustainability services group said:
  There is no doubt that the climate change levy will penalise a number of manufacturing enterprises in the UK, particularly those who have made considerable improvements to their energy efficiency prior to the introduction of the levy.
  Sony, in south Wales, is in that very position.
  The Secretary of State mentioned The Sun, which is of course a part of the Murdoch empire. However, he chose not to mention The Times although it is in the same stable, at Wapping. The Times has highlighted the fact that small businesses will be the biggest losers arising from the levy. It states:
  Those who have not followed the levy through its various transformations may be shocked that the smokestack end of industry fares rather better than the rest,
  The article also points out the irony that
  Massive users of energy, such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals industries can strike deals with the Government to reduce levy charges by up to 80 per cent. in return for meeting targets to cut energy use. Many other businesses,
  such as those in the car industry, cannot strike such deals.
  I should like to deal with the statement made by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the society has said that
  the Climate Change Levy will result in substantial increases in production costs for the UK motor industry. Net energy costs are estimated to increase by 10 to 15 per cent—
  956
  which we should consider in relation to changes in the euro-sterling exchange rate or, perhaps equally relevantly, the sterling-dollar rate—
  for vehicle and component manufacturers as a result of the levy.
  The statement continues:
  In a globally competitive market it is not possible to pass on these cost increases, and there are fears that UK based businesses will lose out as a consequence.
  We are seeing just such an effect. Time and again, we see on television advertisements for cars that are heavily discounted or available for hire-purchase at zero interest. Around the world, it is a competitive industry. We must never forget that the United Kingdom is a great manufacturing nation and a great exporter. However, is it not disappointing that, since 1997, we have dropped from being the fourth to the 10th most competitive nation, and that we are still falling? Such a change can offer no comfort at all to UK manufacturers, including those, such as Toyota, that are near my constituency.
  I welcome Toyota's decision to move Corolla production to Derby. However, when I asked the Secretary of State whether he would like to say something about the far-reaching strategic talks between Ford and Toyota, which could result in a major merger between them in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, he declined. A merger could have a traumatic effect on the car manufacturing industry not only in the United Kingdom but in other parts of the world. It was disappointing that, yet again, he simply said, "Not me, Guy; it's not my business. It's a commercial decision."
  Mr. Miller: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a problem in the vehicle manufacturing industry throughout the world. Will he join me in firm criticism of the way in which General Motors has handled the situation in the UK?
  Mr. Fabricant: Yes. General Motors will have made its commercial decision—now I am sounding like the Secretary of State—but the way in which it dealt with its staff showed a lack of finesse and of modern management practice. At least Ford at Dagenham discussed the issue with the staff before making its announcement. I know how the Vauxhall workers felt, because quite often I turn up at the House and hear about what the Government are doing because it has been announced on radio and television first. Those workers heard the news first on radio and television and were not consulted beforehand, and of course that is wrong.
  The Government continue to say that they are not responsible for the state of manufacturing in the UK, but I refer them to the excellent British Chambers of Commerce website, which publishes a "burdens barometer". I will rattle through the list, but I promise to give Hansard a copy of the table.
  The costs are as follows: trade union recognition, £15.2 million; ordinary maternity leave, £4.5 million: wider entitlement to additional maternity leave, £35 million; parental leave, £72 million; right to time off, £17.25 million; right to be accompanied in a dispute, £4.6 million; part-time workers directive, £29.4 million; national minimum wage, £674.5 million; stakeholder pensions, £200 million; working time directive, £7.65 billion; working families tax credit, £240 million; student loan repayment, £359 million; young people's time

  957
  off for studying and training, £237.5 million; fire precautions regulations, £37.5 million; European works councils, £36.25 million; IR35, £5.4 million.
  That makes a whopping £9.62 billion. The Government say that manufacturing matters, time and time again, but in practice, while the Government spin, manufacturing sinks.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I add my welcome to my new hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). I am sure that he will be an asset to the House. Like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I learned something new today, about the Falkirk wheel. I am sure that a succession of people will go up to see it, and that its legend will go down in the annals of the House.
  Let me update the House on the situation at MG Rover. Despite the cynics whom we heard last year, many of them Conservative Members, the company is on course to meet its business plan. It is bringing out a range of new models, or new variants, this year. Nothing in an industry as ruthlessly competitive as the automotive industry is assured, but MG Rover now has a solid basis on which to go forward.
  There are a couple of lessons to be learned from that: first, do not take inherited or conventional wisdom for granted, because things can change; secondly, we should congratulate all those involved, including the management and the work force in my constituency, on what they have achieved; and thirdly, in contrast to what was being said by the Conservative party last year, we should also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the support that he has offered throughout.
  The welcome developments at MG Rover and Jaguar, the new investment at Toyota and, we hope, good news from Nissan, demonstrate that the automotive industry has some real successes to celebrate. I hope that the regeneration moneys that have been pledged by the Government for three technology corridors—one of which, down the A38, is very relevant to my constituency—will not only reinforce and modernise the motor industry in the midlands but help to diversify the region's economy.
  We know about the problems that have arisen elsewhere in the automotive industry—at the Ford plant in Dagenham, and at the Vauxhall plant in Luton. The way in which BMW sought to dispose of Rover last year, and Vauxhall's lack of consultation with its work force about its decisions with regard to Luton, raise real questions about the adequacy of employee rights in this country to consultation and information. That problem needs to be tackled, either by European action, or by means of domestic legislation, which is the route that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State prefers.
  When Conservative Members talk about regulation, they must recognise that there is a need to address the question of information and consultation in an appropriate legislative form. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said that he did not approve of the way in which General Motors had behaved.
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend will know of my background and of my involvement in the creation of
  958
  some European-wide works councils. Does he accept that there is greater stability in those companies where consultation is genuine and where business decisions are discussed with the trade unions in confidence? In turn, that benefits the employers through better productivity.
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
  It is important to mention some success stories, and one of them is the success of Britain's motor sport and performance engineering industry. Britain leads the world in that sector. New research from the Motorsport Industry Association shows that the industry is worth about £4.8 billion to the economy. It employs 40,000 people, and makes a real contribution to our knowledge-driven economy.
  That presents a huge opportunity, but we must not rest on our laurels. The industry in the UK has grown to a position of strength, but that will not necessarily last for ever. We must look at some of the problems that may arise in the future.
  First, there is the question of personnel. Problems of skill shortages persist, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the industry has the supply of skilled personnel that it needs to prosper in the future. Today's statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stressed the importance of manufacturing and vocational training, and will certainly help in that regard. Moreover, the process works both ways. By promoting the motor sport industry, and similar enterprises, we will begin to attract more people into the manufacturing and engineering sectors.
  Secondly, the industrial infrastructure for performance engineering and motor sport needs to be considered. Developments such as the new Rockingham speedway are to be welcomed, but we must also look closely at some of the ideas regarding the development of Silverstone as a pinnacle for motor racing and the motor sport industry. Consideration must be given as to how such developments can be used to help the manufacturing and engineering industries as a whole.
  There is a solid base for optimism and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said, manufacturing is doing well at present, but some challenges remain to be addressed. I shall describe them only briefly, as I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
  I hope that the Government will take on board some of the representations from organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation. Capital investment has improved under this active Government, who promote manufacturing investment, but all too often it lags behind that of our competitor s. There may be a case for reviewing again the question of capital allowances, to see whether investment could be stimulated further. That is especially important at a time when we suffer from the competitive disadvantage associated with the weakness of the euro.
  Moreover, there is a problem with research and development. All too often our spending in that regard—and especially on development—lags behind that of our competitors. Maybe again we can look at what extra action we can take in that area.
  Lastly, I want to say something on a matter that Conservative Members have mentioned: the climate change levy. We on the Labour Benches take no lessons

  959
  from them on that matter. All that we have heard from them is "Scrap it". Protection of the environment is a matter that concerns us all. Nevertheless, the operation of the levy in its current form needs to be reviewed, because all too often, companies that have improved their productivity are still hit by it in a way that can be seen to be anomalous. That is precisely why we need—not, as Conservative Members seem to think, to throw the baby out with the bathwater—to look at how the levy is targeted and how it could be reviewed to be made fairer.
  We also need to look at the issue of revenue neutrality within sectors of industry, not just across the economy as a whole, and to consider the issue of negotiated agreements, an initiative brought in by the present Government. We should see whether the scope of those agreements could be modified so that the impact is more even across industry and so that some of the possible effects on manufacturing industry do not arise.
  That is a very different formula from the "Scrap it and don't worry about the consequences" approach of the Conservative party. But Ministers need to take on board the legitimate concerns of manufacturing industry about the operation of the climate change levy, and before it comes in to look at possible reviews to ensure that its operation is fairer and that it is part of a package that helps to promote manufacturing industry success rather than have a detrimental effect.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on his maiden speech. I very much hope that he will enjoy his time in the House. Perhaps he will indeed follow in the footsteps of Dennis Canavan in the independence of spirit that his predecessor showed.
  I speak in this debate as someone whose background was in manufacturing industry. I started my career with Ford in Dagenham, in about the same intake as Ian McAllister. I started at the metal stamping division there. What has happened recently is a cause of considerable sadness.
  I want to speak particularly to the position of manufacturing industry in Wales, against the background that gross domestic product per hem there has dropped to 79 per cent. of the UK average, compared with a figure of 115 per cent. in south-east England. Unfortunately, the gap is still widening.
  Manufacturing has a considerable significance for the Welsh economy. Compared with its being a fifth of the UK economy, to which the Secretary of State referred, manufacturing represents between a quarter and a third of the Welsh economy. Since 1997 we had lost 6,000 jobs in manufacturing up to last June. We have lost a further 2,000 since then. That 8,000 loss compares with 2,000 lost in the agricultural sector, which puts the figures into context.
  We have seen the drift, drift, drift of loss of jobs in sectors such as textiles and clothing, about which we have heard from other hon. Members. Now we face the possible loss of thousands of jobs in the steel industry in Wales, a sector that has been of so great importance to us over the years. If we lose these jobs, there will be a knock-on effect way beyond Llanwern itself. It will directly hit areas such as Ebbw Vale and Shotton; it will also indirectly hit other jobs in manufacturing, in transport
  960
  and in many of the support services. Therefore, we were hoping that when the First Minister from Cardiff, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), met with the Prime Minister yesterday some progress might be announced. We still hope that these jobs can he safeguarded. As I have said before, one can mothball a plant, but one cannot mothball the work force.
  Steel and most of the rest of the manufacturing sector are hit by the effects of currency fluctuations. The stability of the pound against the euro is basic. That stability must be at a fair parity. The over-priced pound has undoubtedly been a central factor in undermining the manufacturing sector over the past couple of years, as it hampers exporting and sucks in imports. The too high rate of the pound has that effect not just on manufacturing, but on agriculture and tourism. It is desperately necessary now to get the pound to an appropriate parity against the euro. Once that has been secured, there is a need to move into the common currency, so that never again do we suffer the uncertainties of currency fluctuations within Europe, which is so much of the domestic market for our manufacturing sector.
  Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the right hon. Gentleman approaches currency movements and prospective entry to the euro. However, is he content—as apparently the Secretary of State is—that under the terms of the treaties there is no entitlement for national Governments or Parliaments to influence the decision-making bodies of the European central bank in its conduct of monetary policy?
  Mr. Wigley: I am not altogether convinced that Governments influence the Bank of England's decisions in the United Kingdom. Governments are entitled to opinions and I agree that those should be voiced and heard. However, there needs to be a coherence on Europe if we are to enjoy the stability that is necessary for our manufacturing sector. That is why I am looking for a commitment from the Government not only to entering the European currency zone but to creating the circumstances that will enable that to happen, and to happen as soon as possible.
  We need three changes. First, we need the clear commitment to which I referred. Secondly, we need lower interest rates to help lower the pound's parity and, if inflation is seen as a threat, to use taxation as a tool to dampen it down. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the terms of reference of the Bank of England include a responsibility to keep an eye on what is happening to employment as well as inflation. Those terms exist in the United States, and I believe that they should apply here as well.
  These changes are particularly important for manufacturing industry in Wales. We have as many as 348 manufacturing plants in Wales which are owned by overseas corporations, and they employ some 75,000 workers. They are in Wales not to sell to the Welsh market or even the UK market. They are there, overwhelmingly, to sell to the European market, and they need a level playing field to do so.
  Other specific steps need to be taken to help foster the manufacturing industry in Wales, as elsewhere. We need more investment in research and development in Wales.

  961
  I noted with interest the comments of the Secretary of State when he was addressing the "Investing in the Regions" conference on 15 November. He said:
  Since 1990 the share of GDP within the UK has declined significantly in the North East, the North West, the West Midlands, Wales and Scotland. It has increased significantly in the Eastern Region, London and the South East.
  These are symptoms of something fundamental. We don't have to look far for some of the causes. In 1998 manufacturing businesses invested over ten times as much in research and development in the South East—£l.9 billion—than in the North East—£164 million.
  In Wales, that investment is even less. Therefore, we need positive incentives for investment in research and development.
  Secondly, we should learn in Wales from the experience of Ireland and the way in which its GDP per head has increased not only beyond that of Wales but of the UK. The most important tool used by Ireland was the lower corporation tax rate, which acted as an incentive to attract and expand industry. We need to take advantage of the provision allowed within the European rules for operating aids of this sort to be permissible at least within the objective 1 areas in the UK.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the corporation tax rate set in Ireland at the time was discriminatory, with foreign firms encouraged to invest by being given a preferential rate of corporation tax? I think that that has since been outlawed in the European Union.
  Mr. Wigley: I accept that that is exactly what happened. It happened with the agreement of the European Union, and the recent agreement, that will run for the best part of the next decade in Ireland, allows a lower rate of corporation tax to continue there. As there are objective 1 areas in not only Wales but Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall and derogation for operating aid is possible within those areas—as the Prime Minister recognised in his statement following the recent Nice conference—it is within the Treasury's powers to reach agreement. I was encouraged when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs included in its report last week a specific call for regional variations in taxation, which I welcome. That policy is supported by the Lib-Lab government in Wales. I urge the Secretary of State to persuade the Treasury to make such provision possible.
  Thirdly, the House needs to consider other opportunities for improving regional competitiveness in the UK. I draw attention to a report published by Robert Higgins of the centre for advanced studies at Cardiff University, entitled "An Index of Competitiveness in the UK: Local, regional and global analysis". Wales ranks last but one in the UK regional competitiveness index. The report's summary states:
  At a global level, London and the South East are performing as well as the top-ten most competitive nations … at the lower end of the scale, Wales, the North East and Yorkshire and Humber rank alongside such nations as Hungary, Chile and Israel.
  The disparity in competitiveness is substantial and needs to be addressed by the Government.
  I urge the Government to consider those points, heed the TUC's warning that manufacturing industry in Wales is haemorrhaging and take the radical action needed now—before it is too late.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who is not in the Chamber now. As a friend and admirer of his predecessor, I would welcome him on this Bench. I shall speak to him afterwards.
  We should take no lectures from the Tories about jobs and manufacturing. In the two worst British recessions since the second world war, the Tories showed that they had contempt for manufacturing. Swathes of it disappeared and millions of jobs were lost. When Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was heard to say that manufacturing did not matter any more; the economy could be left to operate by itself; and the financial and service sectors would be enough. Some Opposition Members now seem to be changing their minds about manufacturing and share our view.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman spectacularly misquoted my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Lawson of Blaby. In view of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the former Chancellor's judgments, does he agree with Lord Lawson when he famously and succinctly said that the business of government is not the government of business?
  Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates the profound difference between us. I was about to state my belief that it is the business of government to intervene, to ensure that the economy operates well and to the benefit of the people—which is a different point. If I had time, I would' make greater criticisms of Lord Lawson—whose management of the economy led directly to the chaos at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. The Tories showed malign indifference to the fortunes of manufacturing. They created a casino economy in which people were more interested in making money than in making things. Buying, selling and gambling are interesting and one can make money doing them—but they cannot sustain an economy for long. I suspect that we are seeing crocodile tears today.
  We congratulate the Government on getting 1 million more people in work. There is no question but that many sectors of the economy are doing well, but some have done less well and there are concerns about manufacturing. In my constituency in my first year in Parliament, there were two serious closures with a significant loss of jobs, at Electrolux and a smaller firm named Coulters. More recently, there was the announcement about Vauxhall that many of us are campaigning to reverse. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, trying to convince him to use Government efforts and even Government money to persuade Vauxhall to reverse its decision and stay in Luton. The short-term cost of sustaining Vauxhall's car manufacturing in Luton would be far less than the cost of letting it go—in terms of extra benefits payments, the loss to the manufacturing sector and the effect on the balance of trade.
  Clearly, the pound is overvalued at present. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that there is a problem with overvaluation against other currencies as well as eurozone currencies. I support the Government in resisting the siren voices that are calling for immediate

  963
  entry to the euro. Entry at anything like the present parity would be a disaster for manufacturing. Vauxhall had a special pay agreement that took account of the strong pound. That has been brushed to one side and the company proposes to sack all its workers anyway, but we hope to reverse that plan. Even though Vauxhall started to import a higher proportion of components to offset the currency costs, the company said that the pound should be down to DM2.70 as a sensible, competitive base.
  Fixing the value of the pound, then entering the euro even at an appropriate exchange rate for now, would not necessarily be appropriate in the long term. Although currency stability is wanted, a single currency is a different matter. The postwar stable exchange rate system produced the highest employment and growth in our history. That is the best way to run the developed world and the world economy—using a system of managed exchange rates at sensible parities, not a single currency.
  I recently attended a conference that was addressed by Válav Klaus, until recently Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. He is not of my political persuasion but made the strong point that single currencies work only in coherent, integrated economies in Which the factors of production are genuinely mobile. They do not work when one tries to push together different economies. There are some historical precedents; Válav Klaus used the example of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
  There are, historically, problems surrounding investment in manufacturing, but the latest four quarters for which figures are available snow slightly higher investment than in the last four quarters of the previous Conservative Government. That is rot good enough, but it is better. Manufacturing production is also 2.5 per cent. higher. It is not yet a total disaster, hut if nothing is done about the currency and investment, mere could be greater problems in future.
  I want to see not just Vauxhall saved but the whole motor manufacturing sector boosted by short-term Government assistance and appropriate macro-economic policies, to make sure that the industry is sustained. I have made the point before in the House that Britain is still a net importer of motor products. It does not have overcapacity. We ought to sustain the industry and expand motor manufacturing and other sectors. We must maintain a substantial manufacturing sector, rot just let it go. The previous Government's hands-off policy did not work. We must intervene.
  Last year saw a record trade deficit in goods, which is most worrying. That deficit is more substantial in respect of non-EU countries, which suggests a problem not just within the European Union but with the rest of the world.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech—especially to some of the insights that he offers us. He says that the problem with the value of our currency relates not only to the euro but to other parts of the world. Earlier, he mentioned Korea—as did other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our biggest single trading partner is the United States of America, and that the pound is quite weak against the US dollar? Does he also agree that the Korean
  964
  currency is especially weak at present because of the turmoil in that nation? Is it not unfair of him to say that the pound is overvalued against other major currencies?
  Mr. Hopkins: I define strength or weakness by the trading position. If there is a massive trade deficit with a particular country, that might indicate that the currency is overvalued against that country's currency. It is said that our currency is weak against the dollar, but we need to demonstrate the truth of that before I would accept the case. I do not accept that we have a big trade deficit with America.
  We could go into details, but I shall mention one country that was condemned during the far east meltdown a couple of years ago—Malaysia. It was said then that one must suspend, or not impose, exchange controls and not devalue; however, Malaysia did the opposite and within a year the country bounced back. It imposed exchange controls and quickly devalued. That upset the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but Malaysia recovered and everyone said, "How clever". People were astonished that the strategy worked—but I thought it was obvious, basic economics.
  Last week, an interesting article in The Guardian referred to a rumour that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to intervene in the steel sector over Corus, to try to help to sustain the industry for the future. I am glad about that. It is important not only electorally—obviously—but for the future of our country. We cannot let the steel industry go, although its volume has declined relative to that in similar economies. We must sustain steel, motor manufacturing and other sectors.
  The headline of the article was "Intervene—or kiss goodbye to industry". In the 1970s, I worked for the Trades Union Congress where I was heavily involved with Labour's industrial strategy and with an organisation called NEDDY—the National Economic Development Council. Although NEDDY was not the greatest show in the world and did not achieve much, it focused attention on the problems of particular industries and tried to find solutions. It was extremely useful in exposing the problems of industry.
  The Conservative Government—Mrs. Thatcher's Tories—abolished NEDDY at a stroke; they did not believe in even discussing the problems of industry, let alone in trying to solve them. At least the Labour Government are trying seriously to consider industry. I hope that the rumours about intervention are true and that the Government will go much further than the article suggests.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that manufacturing industry is vital to this country; we must not let it die. At the winding up of the debate, we look forward to hearing what action Ministers propose to take to stem the decline in manufacturing industry.
  I am delighted that the Minister for Competitiveness, who has responsibility for the aerospace industry, is in his place on the Treasury Bench, as I shall refer to the threat of job losses in BAE Systems. We believe that those losses will fall disproportionately on the military side in the north-west.

  965
  When we consider the statistics for total employment in manufacturing, the House will realise how important manufacturing is to the north-west of England and to Wales. In the north-west, almost 21 per cent. of total employment is in manufacturing; the figure is surpassed only in the east midlands and the west midlands. In Wales, the figure is 18.5 per cent, but if we compare England with Wales, manufacturing employment is proportionately more important to Wales. In London, the figure is only 8.4 per cent.
  If only Islington had been the centre of manufacturing industry in this country, perhaps the Prime Minister and the Government would take manufacturing more seriously. I hope that the Government's concentration on all things London will not continue and that manufacturing will not carry on taking such a beating.
  On 19 January, the front page of my local newspaper—the Lancashire Evening Telegraph—carried an article with the headline, "Fear of Job Melt-down". The article lists some of the manufacturing job losses that have occurred recently in east Lancashire:
  590 at Leoni Wiring Systems in Accrington … 450 at car firm TRW in Burnley, followed by 150 at Caligen Foam in Accrington and Viktor Achter in Burnley … 300 at wallpaper manufacturer John Wilman in Nelson; 110 at Blackburn firm SSL … 100 at Crown Wallcoverings in Darwen; 90 at Time Computers in Simonstone—
  in my constituency—and
  50 at the Sappi Paper Mill in Blackburn.
  That is one heck of a roll-call of job losses in manufacturing industry in east Lancashire. I am extremely concerned about them and have already written to the Prime Minister asking him to visit east Lancashire and look for himself. I could not persuade the right hon. Gentleman to go there a few years ago to look at the plight of the farming industry in the Ribble valley. I had another go today. I hope that he will take manufacturing job losses seriously—the industry is a bread and butter one. I have always been involved in the service sector—in retail—but I realise how important manufacturing is for jobs and certainly for skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed out how important it is for our work force to have the right skills.
  The greatest fear for many people—especially those in their 50s, because there is an underlying ageism about jobs in this country—is that if they lose their manufacturing jobs, they will be unable to find other work at all; they will certainly not find work that uses the skills that they have built up. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) referred to that matter. We need to consider multi-skilling to ensure that, when changes in manufacturing are needed—for all sorts of reasons—people will have the skills to make the switch more easily.
  In 1999, there was decline in every manufacturing sector in the north-west except the chemical sector. The announcement on jobs from BAE Systems caused me great fear; the unions have given a figure of 2,000, but the problem is that we are not certain. There has been much discussion of the way that redundancies are announced in motor manufacturing. It is not fair to the work force when the first they hear of such redundancies is when they switch on the radio. Indeed, when I listened
  966
  to the "Today" programme—through gritted teeth, as ever—and heard that there were to be redundancies at BAE Systems, I was pot happy, as a Member representing a north-west constituency where there are many aerospace jobs, that that was the first I had heard of the matter.
  Those are not the first redundancies at BAE Systems; several restructurings have taken place over the past few years and thousands of job losses were the result. That does not affect only those people directly employed by the company: contract jobs disappear or are not renewed; small businesses depending on BAE Systems are affected—not only in the manufacturing sector but in services.
  The Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace includes more than 100 companies which get together and network like crazy to ensure chat the north-west remains a centre of military manufacturing skills. Strategically, the area is vital to aerospace manufacture; we have enormous skills. If those redundancies fall disproportionately in the military manufacturing sector—Samlesbury is in my constituency, while Warton is only a few miles away in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—there will be an enormous ripple effect throughout the whole north-west.
  My fear, therefore, is that jobs will be lost in other, smaller contractor firms—the small businesses that rely on a healthy, vibrant BAE Systems. Many service sector jobs were created 133 the healthy manufacturing climate that used to exist in Lancashire. Those service sector jobs will also be lost.
  Several Members, including me, met the unions on 16 June 2000, when they had a campaign called, "Let's put the British back into aerospace." I totally endorse that campaign. I do not like the name BAE Systems. I like the name British Aerospace, so I shall call it that for the rest of my speech; it is easier. I am proud that the aerospace industry is British and that some of it is located in the north-west—much of it in my constituency. The unions feared that much of the manufacturing that used to take place at British Aerospace would be contracted out to some of the former Soviet bloc eastern European countries, which ant now knocking on the European Union's door for membership. Of course that has happened, and some; of those manufacturing jobs are going to the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
  Some managers at British Aerospace told me that the jobs involved were low level and far better suited to those countries. In fact, it is much cheaper to manufacture there than in the north-west. Irrespective of whether those manufacturing jobs are low level, we cannot stand idly by while they are lost. They could easily be done in this country by British people, some of whom have the required skills; others would be only to happy to get them. So I ask the Government carefully to consider such contracting out to other European countries.
  I understand that, in many respects, British Aerospace has to compete with other aerospace industries throughout the world, and that if the company is disproportionately more expensive here, we may well lose contracts elsewhere; but we should not allow that to happen. That is the dilemma. The Government should negotiate with the company to encourage manufacturing jobs to remain in this country. I also fully understand such things as offset, where we look for contracts abroad and part of the deal is that manufacturing will be carried out there. I have

  967
  no problem with that, but when such jobs go abroad simply because of cost and I am told, "They are low level. Don't worry about it, Nigel", I start to worry if that is the excuse. I ask the Government to consider such matters and small businesses.
  I ask the Government to consider the enormous impact that the climate change levy will have on manufacturing. The levy will cost jobs, and the Government could do something about it. It is their tax; they are introducing it, but we will certainly abolish it when we form the next Government. Labour Members agree that there are real problems with the climate change levy, so please look at it, especially as many companies are desperately worried about it.
  Given my responsibility for Wales, I want to refer to manufacturing there in the remaining few minutes available to me. There have been enormous job losses in the manufacturing sector in Wales, and I shall mention a few. Courtaulds lost 167 jobs in Wrexham. I shall deal with Corus separately. Jobs have been lost at Corus, but I am deeply concerned about the threat of 4,500 job losses that it is considering. Job losses are feared at British Aerospace in Wales. Dewhirst in Pembrokeshire has lost 300 jobs.
  Attracting manufacturing jobs to west Wales is a problem, and distribution is proportionately more expensive there. On Saturday, Stephen Crabb—a Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate—showed me the blight that has occurred in Milford Haven. We must find ways to attract more jobs into that area. Some 900 jobs were lost at BICC General—a power cable business in Wrexham.
  The M4 used to be a magnet for inward investment; it is now job loss alley. Around the M4, Hitachi has lost 350 to 500 jobs. Sony has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and it is losing 400 jobs. Panasonic is losing 1,500 jobs. Those manufacturing job losses have hit south Wales particularly badly, but there is now the prospect of 4,500 job losses at Corus, in Llanwern. We have heard how important steel manufacturing is to this country. It is the guts of manufacturing, and we must ensure that those jobs are preserved.
  The impact on south Wales and the ripple effect throughout the United Kingdom will be enormous. The loss involves 4,500 people directly employed by Corus, but its effect will be multiplied. The Western Mail estimates that about 12,500 could be affected if Corus decides that those jobs will go.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more could have been done for the Ravenscraig plant, which is in the area where I live? If those jobs and the industry had been a protected there, we would not be in the current position.
  Mr. Evans: Ravenscraig is an example of the devastation that has occurred in that area, but it cannot be corrected overnight. The closure has had an enormous impact throughout the area, and it took place several years ago. That is why I hope that we will redouble our efforts. There is a lot of talk, but we need action. That is what the Corus workers will be looking for—not a meeting with the Welsh Assembly or the Prime Minister, and so on.
  Given the current fragmentation of government, people wonder where the buck stops. I can tell the Minister that the buck stops with the Government. If jobs are lost at
  968
  Llanwern, the people there and in south Wales generally will hold the Government responsible for not pulling out their finger and making absolutely certain that everything has been done to protect the manufacturing jobs there.
  The Government should be looking at the fact that rules and regulations cost an extra £5 billion and that taxation on business involves an extra £5 billion. The Government are fixated on the euro. They are telling industry to prepare for a switch to the euro, which is putting enormous costs on industry. Let us concentrate on manufacturing and find out how we can assist it. That is an enormous responsibility for the Government, but they must act now.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I shall never cease to be amazed by the brass-necked audacity of the Tories. I worked in manufacturing industry throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and I watched at close quarters as the Tories vandalised and almost completely devastated our manufacturing base. I was employed for most of the period by a paper machine manufacturer, and there were 3,000 when the Conservatives first came to office. As the trade union representative, I took part in all the frequent redundancy discussions that occurred during those years.
  The Tories then in government viewed those job losses as statistics—casualties of the market. We were exhorted to stop whingeing and to get on our bikes and find a job, but I knew those people personally. Every forced redundancy was, and is, a personal tragedy, involving not just the workers themselves but their families and communities. Redundancy can be a brutal affair.
  In the early 1970s, I worked in a small factory as one of three vertical machinists in the machine shop. The company decided to reduce its numbers and to make one vertical machinist redundant. I had two small children at the time, and hon. Members can imagine the tension that we felt when I went home, knowing that the odds were only 2:1. I fully expected that I would be chosen because I was the last to start working there, and we had to wait two agonising weeks while the company made up its mind.
  On the day of the decision, the foreman walked around the shop-floor, clutching a wad of brown envelopes, which he handed out here and there. We all knew exactly what they were. He passed me by without giving me an envelope, and I still remember the feeling of relief and guilt, because I knew that one of the other two would be going on the dole.
  The management had decided to pick the man on the night-shift, because he was the only one who was not married. Some people might think that that was a fair decision, but he did not appreciate it and I very much doubt whether a tribunal would find such a reason acceptable today. The management delivered his brown envelope to his house while he was in bed. We all found the experience of being made redundant humiliating. It made us feel as though we had done something wrong.
  I have recalled just one incident, but, over the years, there were thousands of similar experiences. Slowly but surely, the 3,000 of us were gradually whittled away with redundancy after redundancy—100 here, 50 there. It happened in factory after factory right across the country, but especially in the north. My Conservative predecessor, Peter Thurnham—who later joined the Liberal

  969
  Democrats—blamed the redundancies on the trade unions. The Tory Governments of the day accepted no blame whatsoever. They brushed aside each announcement of more job losses with senseless comments about market forces and not being prepared to support lame ducks. For Conservative Members to stand here today and shamelessly pretend that they had no part in the decline of British manufacturing takes my breath away. They invented the decline of our manufacturing base, and they enacted the crime with malice.
  It was not just incompetence, although the Conservatives' monetaristic ideas certainly displayed some of that. It may well have been acceptable, or at least understandable, if their policy had been successful, but, in reality, it was an economic disaster, from which we may never recover as a nation. We will certainly never be the same again. The responsibility for that will remain with the Conservatives, especially with their hero Margaret Thatcher, who did more damage to Britain's industrial base than Adolf Hitler achieved in the whole of the second world war.
  I watched as thousands of highly trained and highly skilled craftsmen were driven into any job that they could find—should they be so lucky. At the same time, there was a virtual end to the training of apprentices. The termination of so many apprenticeship opportunities is comparable to a premier league football club abolishing its youth policy. It is not possible to have a successful football team without nurturing young talent, and we will not have a successful manufacturing sector without providing the necessary skills to our young people. During those Conservative years, Britain lost one of its most valuable assets—the skills of our people. They were sacrificed on the altar of market forces. We lost a generation of talent, and it will take mammoth effort to halt the slide of our manufacturing base.
  In my constituency this week, Sandusky Walmsley—my old company—announced more redundancies. My predecessor blamed such a decline of industry on militant trade unions, yet Walmsley has good industrial relations and has not experienced a single minute of industrial action for more than 20 years. In the early 1980s, more than 17,000 people were unemployed in my constituency, and the unemployment rate in Bolton was more than 17 per cent. Today, my constituency has an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent. and slightly more than 1,700 people claim benefit. It lessens the pain when alternative jobs are available, but the jobs that replace those in manufacturing are rarely better than the jobs that people previously held. That is especially true of people who are older and less able to retrain.
  I recognise that the Government have done much good work for manufacturing, but there is clearly much more to do, especially in the north-west. We are still losing jobs, in particular in textiles and engineering. I very much welcome their efforts and this week's announcement of £54 million for the regional innovation fund. That can only help, especially in the north and the west midlands, which will be main beneficiaries. However, there is only so much that direct Government assistance can do. The high value of the pound against the euro is, quite frankly, much more important.
  970
  I am certainly not a euro enthusiast. I was born right after the war and brought up on war comics and black and white movies about the evils of the third Reich, but that is all behind us. To be anti-European when our involvement in Europe is clearly in the best interests of our country is pure stupidity; it is based on the ignorance of sheer prejudice.
  I accept that entry into the euro will inevitably mean a loss of sovereignty. Labour's proposed referendum on that will enable the public to decide. We must engage in an intelligent and informed debate on the subject that weighs the loss of sovereignty against our prospects for economic survival. But who took us down the long European road to the point at which we have no choice but to join the euro? It was, of course, the Conservative party under the leadership of Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. They made our membership of a common currency virtually inevitable. If that is the case—I believe that it is—we had better make the best of it and become members at the right time and at the right level while there is still something left of our manufacturing base.
  The Government have provided a stable economic climate. We have low inflation, low unemployment, strong public finances and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to regenerate Britain's proud history of production. I call on the Government not to concentrate only on the large company job losses in the car manufacturing and steel industries—important though they are—but to keep a wary eye on the supply chain of industry, which is suffering the slow trickle of decline in small company after mall company. It will only be with the success of small energetic enterprises that we will secure a stronger industrial base and a healthy manufacturing future.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I must declare an interest. I have connections with a couple of companies that supply manufactured goods, service manufactured goods and repair manufactured goods.
  My first pleasurable task is to congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on his maiden speech. Every hon. Member vividly remembers his or her maiden speech, and he can recall his with pride because he delivered it in a positive and humorous way. As a by-election victor myself, I know the trials and tribulations that he had to go through to get to this place. It is slightly different to the easier ride of a general election. I congratulate him on that and commend him for the tactful way in which he referred to the splendid independence of his predecessor.
  Let me just give the hon. Member for Falkirk, West a tad of advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—who, I must warn, leads people astray—suggested that the hon. Gentleman should sit on the same Bench as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I have to tell him that that is the old lags' Bench. If he goes there, it will be a career-inhibiting move and, as he has only just arrived in the House, I suggest that he chooses a more up-market Bench from which to start his political career.
  Mr. Purchase: There is nothing up-market about that lot on the Benches behind me.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman can relax because I shall come to him shortly.

  971
  The authors of "1066 and All That" suggested:
  History is not what you thought. It is what you can remember.
  Another famous person said, "He who writes the history writes the truth". The selective memories of political parties are notorious and it is time that we stopped quoting historical references and started to look to the future.
  We all remember the dramas and the traumas of the mid-1970s. We were the sick man of Europe and had 26 per cent. inflation. I am grateful because but for that, I would not have been successful in a by-election in a strong Labour seat. Equally, we can all remember the difficulties that we faced in overcoming the problems of the nationalised industries, which were grossly overmanned in the 1980s. We can go on and on, and even go back to William the Conqueror to make all the necessary partisan points. However, that would not be helpful. We must look to the future and consider what we can do to help.
  The Labour party had 18 years in opposition to prepare its policies and it has had four years to implement them. However, the present position is very worrying for manufacturing. Something is certainly going wrong. I know that it will not help the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and his career, but I agree with much of what he said. We have an exporting tradition and we should change the culture of investment. Our companies that do well, such as the pharmaceutical companies, have a culture of extra investment in their businesses. They invest a greater percentage than firms in many other sectors.
  Members on both sides of the House, with the exception of members of the Government, are aware of the difficulties facing manufacturing industry. I remind the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) of what he said in Trade and Industry questions last week. He asked the Minister of Trade:
  What assessment he has made of the recent performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England.
  The Minister said that its performance was being continually assessed and implied that it was going from strength to strength, so the hon. Gentleman asked:
  Is my right hon. Friend aware that output, exports and employment have fallen in the past four months in the north-west of England? BAE Systems is threatening thousands more redundancies. Things are therefore becoming more difficult, to say the least. Bolton has suffered wave after wave of engineering redundancies and two textile factories have closed recently.—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 501.]
  Therefore, I took some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier strictures slightly amiss.
  Mr. Crausby: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that manufacturing industry has declined in the north-west, because the industrial base has been damaged to the point that there are not the skills available to provide local industries with the people they need?
  Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this issue, because it helps me to explain why he is living in the past. Last year was dominated by the problems of the motor manufacturing industry—by the threats to the future of BMW in the midlands, the prospective closure of the Ford plant at Dagenham and the end of the Vauxhall plant in Luton. The only exception is
  972
  the Nissan plant in Sunderland, and the whole House hopes and prays that a decision is made to keep production of the Micra there.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) was right. We must have a critical mass of various activities, such as motor sport and the steel industry, in this country. If we do not have such a critical mass, we will suffer the downside. Smaller businesses suffer because they will not be able to supply a main industry and many redundancies will result.
  The prime example of that problem is Corus. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that there could be 4,500 redundancies but, every time I see a figure, the number seems to rise. The last figure that I saw was 6,000. I sincerely hope that it is not correct.
  Not only Conservatives Members express concern about unemployment. Only a few months ago, John Monks said that he anticipated that unemployment in manufacturing will rise at the rate of 10,000 every month—a staggering amount and a worrying figure.
  Two debates on manufacturing have been held in Westminster Hall recently. I have accused the Government of abandoning manufacturing and, if not the crime of malice, of the sin of indifference. I am glad that the Minister for Competitiveness has just arrived; he is his normal charming self. He said:
  We are taking action on the three key issues of the European exchange rate, the climate change levy and energy prices. —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 238WH.]
  I shall discuss what the Government are doing about them.
  The plain fact is that matters are being allowed to slide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out that, in the early 1990s under a Conservative Government, there was a continual and steady rise in employment in manufacturing as opposed to the collapse in the number of jobs by 350,000 that has occurred since 1997. The prospects are worse.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made some valid and telling points. I do not normally like to agree with the Liberal Democrats, but I will on this occasion. He mentioned the way in which unit labour costs have moved. Relative to our major competitors, they have moved by 45 per cent. since 1995. There are also serious underlying trends in the balance of trade. Export volumes have risen by 38.5 per cent. over that period while import volumes have risen by 57.7 per cent. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out, we are an exporting nation. When our imports start to exceed our exports, that is a sign of trouble.
  Overall manufacturing output rose by only 2.2 per cent. between 1995 and 1999, and that is lower than our GDP growth of 2.9 per cent. in the past 12 months. The relative strength of sterling against the euro and the dollar has made our exports less competitive and Member after Member has driven that point home. However, I do not know whether the Government have taken the message on board.
  It is no surprise that the Government do not wish to address these serious issues—they are far too embarrassing for them. However, we have a positive programme to help manufacturing. First, we would remove the damaging climate change levy. We are below

  973
  the Kyoto targets, and our serious problems will come when our nuclear plants start to close. Therefore, we should consider what we should do about this country's energy production now, and not wait for those plants to close with all the problems that that will create.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, the levy is a blunt instrument that is not properly tuned to the needs of our industry. I noted how dismissive some Labour Members were; the Secretary of State seemed to regard the cost of £100 million as a mere bagatelle. However, £100 million is a lot of money to manufacturing industry and such a cost would be a hammer blow to something that is already being hit.
  The Conservative party would have a seat for manufacturing industry on our council of economic advisers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the shadow Chancellor takes on that role. We want manufacturing to be at the heart of the political process.
  Several of my hon. Friends spoke about deregulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made a powerful speech and I shall return to that shortly. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has estimated that industry will face an enormous bill of approaching £10 billion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rightly discussed the pound and the euro. He made some positive points. Until the Chancellor stops his fiscal policy of spending more money than we earn, our interest rates will not come down sufficiently to enable the pound to reach a better level against other currencies.
  We have also made commitments to help small village shops by a reduction in their rates and we have a clear policy for 3p off fuel. To put it delicately, the Government's policy on fuel is slightly unclear.
  I want to put some flesh on to the bones of our deregulation policy. We have a positive policy that we have announced and shall use. Its main element is an independent assessment process outside of government, so that officials will not decide whether the regulations that they have drawn up will have a particular impact. We will appoint independent people who know industry and who know what is what. They will provide the advice.
  I have to smile recalling that, when my party was in government, jumping about at the Opposition Dispatch Box was the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), now a Home Office Minister. I have to commend the hon. Lady on having brilliantly badgered and harried us about our efforts on deregulation; sometimes, she tabled 50 questions in one week—bang, bang, bang. She said that when a Labour Government came to power, they would do something magnificent. She spoke the truth. The Labour Government broke the record: in 1999, they introduced more than 3,700 new regulations, and every figure emerging now suggests that in 2000 they managed to top that record of hammer blows on industry.
  Of course, the deregulation unit is in place and working to remove regulations that are crippling our industry. I recently heard about the unit's major triumph: it has done away with a restriction on Sunday dancing. Hon. Members can now dance on a Sunday without fear of the
  974
  law coming down upon them. At this point in my speech, I was hoping to look up from my copious notes to see happy and smiling faces on the Government Benches, but I do not see a single smile. Are my hon. Friends happy that they can now dance on Sundays? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, ecstatic."] What a positive step.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Page: I have only a few minutes and I want the Minister to be able to give a full account of the Government's crimes when she responds to the debate, so I am reluctant to bite into her time.
  I turn to the Government's approach to payment times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned that it was the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green who pushed questions about payment times and said how disgraceful the situation was, but as soon as the hon. Lady left the Department of Trade and Industry, it all went to the dogs. The percentage of bills promptly paid is now down to 93 per cent. from the original figure of 97.7 per cent. Let me quote from The Sunday Telegraph—the Secretary of State may quote from The Sun if he likes. A headline from last Sunday reads: "MPs slam DTI for late bill payments", and the following article states:
  The report by the trade and industry select committee is expected to be a catalogue of failure, with muddled figures and lack of focus in many DTI objectives.
  Apparently the Committee
  will also say the department's aim of building "an enterprise society" amounts to "a dog's breakfast" and urge ministers to look again at defining such a goal.
  Finally, the report states that the Committee has
  discovered there are no definitive figures for staff numbers at the department. nor accurate statistics on sick leave.
  That is why this country is in such trouble. With a Department like that responsible for our manufacturing, no wonder unemployment and job losses are mounting daily.
  The Chancellor said that he wanted to do away with boom and bust. Well, he is certainly doing away with the boom. I hope that we can prevent a bust.
  6.43 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Replying to the debate gives me the privilege of welcoming the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). It is a particular pleasure for me do so, because I know his constituency well and my parents lived there for a while. However, despite my detailed knowledge of the constituency, I was unaware of the Falkirk wheel, and I, like the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), will happily take up my hon. Friend's invitation to visit it.
  My hon. Friend represents a very impressive constituency made up of very impressive people. I hope that it will benefit fro n the assistance that we have been able to give Longannet to secure the future of coal mining on the Forth—many of the constituents of Falkirk, West work at Longannet. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend has begun a distinguished career, but if the hon. Member for Lichfield intends to visit my hon. Friend's

  975
  constituency, I should warn him that, as an ex-major, my hon. Friend is probably even fitter than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mid-debate, I found myself checking whether this was an Opposition day, given that the Opposition Benches had the appearance of the Mary Celeste. That is a clear sign of the consideration that Conserve Live Members give to our manufacturing industry. It is significant that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said in mitigation at the start of his speech that he did not want to think about the past—let us forget the past and look to the future, he said. If I were in his position, especially if I had been a Minister in the Conservative Government, I would want to forget the past as well. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 56.7 per cent. between 1997 and 2000, and by a further 14.7 per cent. since 2000—directly as a consequence of the policies of the current Government.
  Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) spoke of the killer, devastating policy that is supposed to win their party the next general election a Conservative Government would appoint to a council of economic advisers someone from the manufacturing sector. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and everyone else will be quivering in the face of that killer Conservative policy. Yesterday, one of my colleagues said that the Conservatives' economic policy would disgrace Mickey Mouse, but that was an insult to Mickey Mouse.
  The right hon. Member for Wells made much of the climate change levy. Let me take up some of his points relating to the Engineering Employers Federation report and the Ernst and Young survey which other speakers mentioned. I do not recognise the figures contained in the press release to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The EEF estimates that the net cost of the levy will be £100 million, but the basis of those figures is wholly unclear. The EEF appears to be confused about which sectors are eligible to enter into negotiated agreements and it has missed the fact that, in a modern economy, the ability to use energy efficiently is not merely a matter of having a sensible environmental policy, but one of being globally competitive. One of the strengths of the levy is that it is designed to make companies examine their use of energy and use it much more effectively.
  Companies can seek exemptions and they can make changes to improve their energy efficiency. They can use new forms of renewable energy and good quality heat and power. The levy will be revenue neutral: it is estimated that in its first year it will raise £1 billion, all of which will be recycled back to business, via a 0.3 per cent. reduction in employers' national insurance contributions; £100 million in enhanced capital allowances for investment in energy-saving technologies, the need for which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden); and £50 million for the Carbon Trust that will provide energy-saving advice and audits and promote low carbon technologies, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
  Mr. Fabricant: In what way is the levy revenue neutral to companies such as Sony, which have already made the
  976
  investment? They will have to pay the climate change levy, but will be unable to get back any of the investment that they have already made.
  Mrs. Liddell: As Lord Marshall said in his report on the environment, which I think was published in 1998, energy efficiency is not a one-off venture and should continue throughout the company's operations. That is common sense.
  The right hon. Member for Wells also told us how Conservative economic policy would lead to reduced interest rates and lower inflation. No wonder the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked us to forget history, as this week 10 years ago the inflation rate was 8.5 per cent. and the interest rate was 14 per cent. The Government's economic policies have moved us away from the boom and bust of the Conservative years. We have economic stability, as was recognised in the report that was outlined in The Sun and to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
  Manufacturers need economic stability and Labour is delivering that. Public borrowing has been cut by more than £45 billion in three years, inflation is lower than it has been for 30 years and long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 35 years. Those policies are giving businesses the opportunity to expand and create employment.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I should like to make some progress.
  The Government regard manufacturing as a key part of the economy that makes a major contribution to Britain's productivity, innovation and trade performance. We recognise, however, that some sectors of manufacturing industry are going through considerable difficulty. We are helping them by providing the macro-economic stability to which I referred. Low interest rates, low inflation and sound public finances will help all UK manufacturers in the long term.
  We recognise that some companies are affected by global circumstances. Such companies are often in traditional sectors where they are unable to benefit from technological changes. I do not blame Opposition or Labour Members for concentrating on high-profile cases involving job losses, but there are also good news stories, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out.
  Mr. David Winnick: The situation in the west midlands is undoubtedly better now than during the two major recessions of the 1980s, as all hon. Members who represent west midlands constituencies recognise. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of my concern about a Swedish-owned company that is based in my constituency and which is being closed? Sandvik is to be completely closed by August, with the loss of 139 jobs. Will she or one of her ministerial colleagues receive a deputation on that important matter, about which I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers and I recognise his concern. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be only too happy to receive a delegation.

  977
  In addition to the specific measures that we have taken to support manufacturers—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the assistance that we have sought to give to the textile industry—we have also introduced the lowest ever rate of corporation tax. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made much of corporation tax, but we have the lowest rate in Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked about research and development. We have made a £150 million research and development tax credit available for small and medium enterprises and introduced new 100 per cent. allowances for small and medium-sized businesses to help them in adapting to information technology. Those are concrete measures that are of direct assistance to industry in dealing with the management of change.
  Mr. Bercow: The verdict of the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, Chris Humphries, is that
  the Government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness.
  In the Queen's speech of 1999, however, the Government promised to
  address inappropriate and over-complex regulation … —[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 5.]
  In the light of those statements, is the right hon. Lady proud of the fact that, all this time later, the Regulatory Reform Bill has still not been given a Second Reading?
  Mrs. Liddell: We heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield about the some of the regulations that the hon. Gentleman, and presumably other Opposition Members, would like the Government to get rid of. Those include measures on maternity pay and the national minimum wage. However, I am interested in conscious measures that have a direct relevance to ordinary people as they go about their lives.
  Opposition Members are determined to ignore the fact that the Government have been prepared to act to assist business. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is parroting on, but he could not even manage to make a speech in this debate. His remarks will not change our attitude in any way. We make no apologies for introducing improved workers' rights, as such rights are an important part of a civilised society.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) spoke about the need to extend management development and training. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made the same point. Management development and training are a key aspect of a knowledge-driven economy. Such an economy is not only about increasing technical skills, but about ensuring that our businesses have the best possible management and leadership skills. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend in that respect. He also made a telling point about the need for flexible skills in a changing economy—a concern that was also mentioned by Opposition Members. That issue underpins every aspect of the Government's economic, industrial and education policy.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke about the sorts of regulations and measures the Government see as positive. The CBI recognises the work
  978
  that we are doing through the regional development agencies, which are the instruments that allow us to provide assistance at the very sharp end.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Ghastly things.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman uses the word "ghastly". That is what he thinks about giving direct assistance to parts of the country that require such help as they cope with economic change.
  The Government understand the challenges faced by manufacturing industry, but we cannot wish them away. Opposition Members have repeatedly referred to the euro. They fail to recognise that their policy is not only economically illiterate, but does nothing to help manufacturing industry to plan for the future. We recognise the values of a successful single currency, but the economic preconditions must be right. Of course, Opposition Members say no to the single currency, or at least that it will not be introduced for a period that will be decided arbitrarily.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke about the aerospace industry, but he failed to acknowledge the 22,000 additional jobs that are being created in British Aerospace. [Interruption.] It is BAE to which I am specifically referring. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also failed to point out that 55.9 per cent. fewer people were on the unemployment register in his constituency in 2000 than there were when the Government were elected. That was helped by a further drop of 3.6 per cent. He failed also to recognise that we are dealing with a modern economy and creating jobs and opportunities. He had some cheek to speak to us about Ravenscraig. I represent one of the constituencies affected by Ravenscraig. It took a Labour Government to bring about the changes being made to the site, which are transforming it into a section of Lanarkshire that will be a beacon for all of Scotland. It was the actions of the Conservative party that closed Ravenscraig in the first place. Perhaps he would like to take up the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), who worked as a shop steward in the Ravenscraig plant at the time in question.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East asked about information and consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced only last week that we will review all UK arrangements affecting collective redundancies. That review will consider whether current laws are working and, in particular, whether more should be done to promote effective consultation with employees. We will involve both the Trades Union Congress and the CBI. That is a sensible way forward that does not resemble the jingoistic, knee-jerk response of Opposition Members. As I said, they have only one killer proposal: putting somebody else on to a committee. Opposition Members do not understand manufacturing industry. If they did, they would be ashamed to come to the House in view of their record. From 1979 onwards, 3 million manufacturing jobs disappeared.
  We will address the difficulties of parts of manufacturing industry that are suffering through changes in the global economy and in their industries. However, we shall also celebrate those manufacturing industries that

  979
  are growing and exporting, and form part of the knowledge-based economy. In partnership, we will ensure that stability, a sound economy and the sort of economic climate in which companies can plan and grow will lead to more jobs and improved competitiveness.
  I urge the House to reject the motion and support the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 286.

  Division No. 84]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Allan, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Green, Damian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hammond, Philip

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burnett, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Cash, William

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

  Chidgey, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Clappison, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Flight, Howard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Madel, Sir David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fraser, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gale, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Garnier, Edward

  Moore, Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gibb, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gidley, Sandra

  Norman, Archie

  Gill, Christopher

  Oaten, Mark

  980

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Öpik, Lembit

  Syms, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prior, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Randall, John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ruffley, David

  Walter, Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Waterson, Nigel

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whittingdale, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Willetts, David

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

  Willis, Phil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. James Gray and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cawsey, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Bailey, Adrian

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Crausby, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Berry, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drew, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Casale, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caton, Martin

  Edwards, Huw

  981

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonnell, John

  Foulkes, George

  McIsaac, Shona

  Galloway, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McNulty, Tony

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWilliam, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mallaber, Judy

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Maxton, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pond, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Joyce, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rogers, Allan

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lammy, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Laxton, Bob

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  Levitt, Tom

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  982

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Todd, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wilson, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wood, Mike

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 132.

  Division No. 85]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainger, Nick

  Browne, Desmond

  Allan, Richard

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Burnett, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barron, Kevin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bayley, Hugh

  Casale, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chidgey, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coaker, Vernon

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Connarty, Michael

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Breed, Colin

  Cousins, Jim

  983

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keetch, Paul

  Drew, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drown, Ms Julia

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lammy, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lock, David

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWillian, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsder, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harvey, Nick

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moore, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  984

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

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

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Oaten, Mark

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pike, Peter L

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pond, Chris

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pope, Greg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Rendel, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane, Chris

  Watts, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Willis, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wills, Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wood, Mike

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Woolas, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Body, Sir Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Fallon, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Flight, Howard

  Cash, William

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Chope, Christopher

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Clappison, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Collins, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Cran, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  985

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Green, Damian

  Norman, Archie

  Greenway, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Paice, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Pickles, Eric

  Hawkins, Nick

  Prior, David

  Hayes, John

  Randall, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Brigwater)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lansley, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walter, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wells, Bowen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Madel, Sir David

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mates, Michael

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Willetts, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  986

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. James Gray and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the low inflation and low interest rates that this Government has brought and which bring the economic stability needed by the manufacturing sector; welcomes the measures that this Government has taken to encourage investment, innovation and productivity which will particularly help manufacturing businesses; welcomes the Government's approach in helping businesses and people through structural change as opposed to the previous Government's laissez-faire approach; and condemns the Opposition's record on manufacturing, where employment declined by 2¾ million during its period in office.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on Sport, the Ayes were 318, the Noes 5, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on Legal Aid and Advice, the Ayes were 427, the Noes 4, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on Local Government, the Ayes were 426, the Noes 7, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 433, the Noes 1, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion on European Communities, the Ayes were 425, the Noes 8, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

  Public Health
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.28 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with concern the failures of Her Majesty's Government's public health policy, particularly relating to immunisation and communicable diseases; and calls on the Government to consider urgent measures to reduce the risks to public safety and to take urgent action to allay public concerns.
  When we debate health in the House, we often debate the structure and financing of the national health service, rather than considering health policy in detail. Health policy is an issue that we should discuss more. In this necessarily short debate, I intend to concentrate on areas of public health policy about which there is public anxiety, or in which I believe there to be a lack of information or a need for correction in the Government's position.
  Those who take an interest in these issues expect public health policy to have more all-party support than most others. Indeed, I hope that this will be a matter on which the public can take reassurance from the agreement on both sides of the House when we come to decisions on the basis of the proper scientific evidence before us. That is why we have tabled a relatively modest motion on the failures, rather than the failure, of the Government's policy on public health.
  In that spirit, I shall begin by speaking on immunisation. We need to congratulate the Government and the Department of Health on the success of the influenza vaccination campaign, and on the campaign relating to meningitis C, both of which we supported. Indeed, it shows exactly what can be done when the Department, through its advertising agencies, makes great play of such policy. We look forward to the development of a pneumococcus vaccine, for example, which offers great potential for advertising campaigns.
  There has been great focus in recent days on MMR. As the House will know, MMR is the vaccine given to protect children against measles, mumps and rubella. There has also been much media coverage in recent weeks of possible links between the MMR vaccination and the incidence of both autism and Crohn's disease. We believe that MMR is still the best and the safest way to protect children from those diseases and that there is no evidence published that proves a link between MMR and those diseases. None the less, the vaccination uptake rate has declined.
  The World Health Organisation recommends 95 per cent. as the figure needed to ensure herd immunity—in other words, that is the point at which the immunisation of others protects the rest. Immunisation reached 92.5 per cent. in 1995, but has fallen to 88.3 per cent. More important, the children who did not receive the vaccine when the health scare came to light are now reaching school age, and school is an environment in which the transmission of measles is much more common.
  It is worth pointing out to those who fear MMR that 1 million children die from measles worldwide each year. In developing countries with poor vaccination programmes and poor nutrition rates, measles is an even
  988
  more severe disease. It is rare in the United Kingdom but, even here, complications are common when children catch it. Those complications include a severe cough and breathing difficulties, pneumonia and eye infections. Most are caused by secondary bacterial infections, but there is a one in 1,000 chance of measles leading to encephalitis from which three in 10 will die.
  It is important that those who make a choice about immunisation understand the relative risks that they may encounter. Those who do not die from encephalitis can suffer severe disabilities, including brain damage. Ireland is having similar immunisation problems. In 1999, there were more than 1,500 cases of measles and hundreds of young children had to be hospitalised, some suffering from dangerous inflammation of the brain. Two died, and many were left with long-lasting disabilities.
  Another risk is that rubella and mumps will return. One mumps sufferer in 25 will suffer a degree of hearing loss. Before MMR was introduced, mumps was the most important cause of viral meningitis in children. We forget such statistics at our peril. Equally, before 1988 there were more than 40 cases of congenital rubella syndrome every year, which is not an insignificant number.
  We need to immunise at a level sufficient to prevent any possible epidemic. We are below the level required, and recent events in Ireland and the Netherlands show the tragic consequences of failure to immunise. I believe that the scientific evidence clearly shows that MMR is safe and we are not convinced that there is any link between autism and MMR. However, many members of the public and some in the medical and nursing professions believe otherwise. That failure of confidence in the programme is resulting in a considerable public health risk.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State on 1 December 1999 and, for the sake of giving information to the House, it is worth referring to that letter and his reply. I said:
  During our time in our relative positions, we will no doubt have a large number of issues where we will profoundly disagree.
  Well, that was right. I added:
  I hope, however, that in other areas, notably public health policy, we will be able to work together for the common good. One of these areas must be childhood immunisation and I know that you share my concerns about the low levels of MMR immunisation and the consequent risk of a measles epidemic. There has been a great deal of scientifically dubious information put into the public domain creating scare stories recently. The only possible outcome of this is a greater risk to all children of a measles outbreak which, as you know, can cause severe damage even in healthy populations like those in the UK.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I can assure you that we would be only too happy to undertake any joint initiative which shows that politicians can put party political differences behind them when important principles of public health are at stake.
  I hope you will accept this offer in the spirit in which it is offered.
  The Secretary of State thanked me and said that he would get in touch with the Minister for Public Health to decide how we could take forward an all-party initiative on improving uptake. I am sorry that it has taken longer than I would have liked for the Government to suggest the programme to educate the public about MMR, which I welcomed this week.
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? He may know that I am secretary of the all-party group on primary care and public health. We organised a meeting in June on that very topic.

  989
  He was invited, as was my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, who attended. We had a good meeting to take evidence, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not attend. Given his remarks about a bilateral approach to the issue, where was he that evening?
  Dr. Fox: Considering the spirit and the tone of my remarks, the hon. Gentleman does himself and the House no service by making such a puerile point. The position of the Opposition was and is clear.
  The Secretary of State will be aware that many people will be listening to the debate, hoping for reassurance. What would the Government's position be should MMR rates continue to fall? I do not ask him for a figure at which he might decide to alter policy because that would only encourage those who are sceptical not to opt for immunisation. However, I put it to him that if trends continue to fall, he may face the extraordinarily unpalatable decision of accepting single-dose vaccines as preferable to no vaccine at all.
  I understand that that would not be an easy choice in terms of public health because the Secretary of State would not want to send out a wrong signal that might encourage people to believe that MMR is not safe. Nor do I believe that it would be responsible to leave people no option should parents decide that they were not satisfied about the safety of MMR, perhaps because of stories that they have read in the newspapers. In a spirit of co-operation, will he seriously consider how the Government would respond in such a situation?
  On tuberculosis, the problem is twofold. The school immunisation programme has been suspended in many parts of the country. At the same time, the number of TB cases is rising appreciably. The BCG vaccination was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1953, but the number of vaccinations fell from 476,000 in 1998–99 to only 196,000 in 1999–2000 due to the shortage of the vaccine, which we all understand.
  The Government's most recent position was set out in a written answer on 8 January:
  Routine immunisation of all school children at age 10–14 was suspended in September 1999 due to severe manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Celltech Medeva.
  The Department is doing all it can to secure a robust supply of UK licensed and batch released BCG vaccine, and will announce as soon as possible when the routine schools programme can resume. All those who missed their BCG vaccination due to the suspension of the programme will be recalled as part of a catch up programme.—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 539W.]
  I ask the Secretary of State to give us an idea of when the programme may resume because we are all receiving letters from concerned parents, especially those in areas where the health authority policy has for some time been not to immunise and the rate of TB infection has risen.
  Tuberculosis has increasingly been associated with areas of urban decay. In 1998, the national survey of TB found that 56 per cent. of cases were in people born abroad, many in Africa. According to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there were 6,143 notified cases in 1999, 40 per cent. of which were in London. That has a massive implication for how the public health service is organised in the capital.
  990
  One major problem is lack of staff. Only 14 per cent. of the 43 health districts with the highest TB rates meet the minimum staffing standards. In Newham, for example, there are only two nurses to deal with 240 cases. The British Thoracic Society recommends one nurse per 40 cases. There are also problems with maintaining screening of asylum seekers—only 80 per cent, of asylum seekers at Heathrow are screened, for example. I should like to know what discussions the Secretary of State has had and what measures might be taken to increase that figure, especially for those coming from high-risk areas.
  The number of cases of multi-drug resistant TB is increasing: there were 50 in the UK last year. A patient with multi-drug resistant TB costs the NHS an average of more than £60,000. That TB is usually caused by unmonitored patients failing to take the drug treatment correctly and developing resistance to effective anti-TB drugs. The Public Health Laboratory Service has reported a cluster of drug-resistant TB in north London. Twenty-six cases have been resistant to Isoniazid—25 in north London and one in south London. Again, that is an issue of concern. The House would welcome any comments that the Secretary of State can make in his reply on the implications for the organisation of health care services in London.
  The next issue that I want to touch on briefly is CJD. There are two separate issues in this regard: the first is haemophiliacs, and the second is the measures that the Government introduced over Christmas and new year. Among haemophiliacs—I am sure that all hon. Members will have received correspondence on this—there is a feeling that there is unfairness in the United Kingdom. Patients with haemophilia in Scotland and Wales can obtain genetically pure recombinant factor 8, which poses no risk to the recipient. However, haemophiliacs in England still receive blood-derived products, which necessarily entail a higher risk. Haemophilia groups have made major representations, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State what measures the Department intends to take in future to minimise the risks for haemophiliacs.
  Haemophiliacs have already had to endure a far higher risk of most diseases than any of us will ever have to endure. Having run the gauntlet of hepatitis and HIV, it is intolerable that they should have to go through further risk to save what is not a large amount of money for the NHS. At the very least, patients in England should be brought into line with those in Scotland and Wales on what is available from a publicly funded service.
  Will the Government provide further information about the decision on tonsillectomies and single-use instruments that they announced over the Christmas recess? Last November, John Collinge of the Imperial College school of medicine claimed that half the surgical instruments used for tonsil operations could be contaminated by variant CJD. The Department issued guidelines and announced at Christmas that tonsillectomies would be performed using single-use instruments at the end of this year.
  Concern has arisen because prisons, which are believed to cause variant CJD, are far more resistant to cleaning and heat sterilisation than normal bacteria and viruses. The tonsils are believed to be infected with variant CJD before obvious symptoms of the disease appear. It would therefore be possible for a surgeon to carry out a

  991
  tonsillectomy on an apparently healthy person, contaminate his instruments and pass the infection on to someone else.
  The infectious protein has also been found in the spleen, thymus, brain and lymph nodes. From the current debate on MMR, we are all aware that, if the public believe that information is not being made fully available, they are far less likely to listen to any messages coming from the Department. The Secretary of State may not be able to tell us this evening, but perhaps he can publish information and advice he has received about the relative risk of the operations that I have mentioned and the capacity of different tissues to harbour the protein that causes CJD. The more open we are about this debate and the more information that the public can have at the earliest possible date, the more likely we are to persuade them of the safety of this health policy.
  Mr. Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman talked about providing public information and people knowing the issues surrounding all those communicable diseases. In my constituency, we have established the sure start programme, in which parents of very young children get advice and support and go somewhere where they can talk about the issues among themselves and to health professionals. Would the Opposition, if they were ever to come to power, keep or abolish the £500 million spend on the sure start programme, which is doing so much good in my constituency?
  Dr. Fox: I am not aware of the details of the programme in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but similar programmes work very well in other constituencies. Where publicly funded information programmes—established by that mechanism or other mechanisms which I should be happy to examine—ensure that the public feel confident about the information that they receive, that should be encouraged. This is a simple message about trying to reassure the public.
  That is one of the biggest problems that we have as politicians. In the light of CJD and the fact that the public are necessarily sceptical about the evidence that scientists give them, Members of Parliament need to reassure them by every possible mechanism if they are to have confidence in public health policy and be part of the numbers required to make that policy work.
  We also need to look at the resources provided for sterilisation units in our hospitals. We have heard recent examples of hospitals cancelling routine surgery because of a lack of confidence in their sterilisation equipment. Those things need to be considered as part of a wider policy review.
  Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House more about the details of the Government's sexual health strategy, which we have been promused for some time? However, according to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there has recently been a rapid increase in acute sexually transmitted disease infections. Since 1995, cases of chlamydia, for example, have risen by 76 per cent.; gonorrhoea by 55 per cent.; syphilis by 54 per cent.; and genital warts by 20 per cent. There have also been outbreaks of infectious syphilis in the homosexual community in Brighton and Manchester. Those trends are extremely worrying.
  Will the Secretary of State deal with those issues in his reply? Will he tell us about the Government's intended approach to MMR and what policies on prevention and
  992
  treatment they will introduce to deal with the increasing number of TB cases? Will the Government ensure that recombinant factor 8 will be made available to all haemophiliacs in England? Will the Secretary of State publish all the evidence on the relative risks of the transmissibility of CJD, and put that into the public domain? Will he also publish details of the Government's sexual health strategy, along with details about funding implications and targets?
  We often have extremely partisan debates in the House and it is relatively unusual for us to have potentially consensual ones. However, public health is of concern to us all.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie rose—
  Dr. Fox: I am not giving way.
  I hope that the areas that I have outlined to the Secretary of State will make it clear that, potentially, there are areas of wide agreement between us. Failures in public health policy, particularly in relation to communicable diseases, are not acceptable. Those diseases put everyone at unnecessary risk. We can stop that, and we know how; it is simply a matter of having the will to do so. The Government will have our support if they put those measures in place. The Secretary of State now has a chance to ask for that support.
  7.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "condemns the widening health inequalities between 1979 and 1997 and the failure of Conservative governments to acknowledge health inequality or address the growing health gap between rich and poor; and supports initiatives to improve public health and tackle health inequalities, including new vaccination programmes for influenza and Meningitis C, the allocation of an extra £450 million to improve cancer and coronary heart disease services in England, the extension of the breast screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70, the strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies, the largest-ever investment in smoking cessation services and the proposed ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship."
  It is a top priority for the Government to improve the health of the nation, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly said. Our country's vaccination programme is the first line of defence against serious disease and illness. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is much of which we should be proud. We are the first country in the world—indeed, the NHS is the first health care system in the world—to have introduced the new meningitis C vaccine. The vaccine programme is the biggest that the country has seen since the polio vaccine was introduced four decades years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was responsible for making that brave and right decision, which has saved lives. Already, about 500 cases have been prevented and we estimate that 50 deaths have been avoided. That will improve even further now that the programme is completed.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring alluded also to the flu vaccine programme. As he knows, flu vaccine has been made available for the very first time to people 65 and over. In the three months to January 2001—thanks to the hard work of family doctors, practice nurses, health authorities and others—65 per cent. of the eligible

  993
  population of over-65s have been immunised. When we set ourselves a target of 60 per cent. immunisation, some people said that it could not be done. It has been done. Indeed, the target has been exceeded. That is extremely welcome news.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I support the Government's programme to deal with meningitis. However, does the Secretary of State realise that, because of the smaller number of meningitis C cases, there is a slight danger that the public will become complacent about the other strains of meningitis? The number of cases of other strains of meningitis has increased. The danger of headlines proclaiming "Meningitis solved", rather than "The meningitis C situation is improved" is that fewer people will be able to recognise the symptoms. There is still a long way to go on those other strains.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and he speaks with some knowledge on these issues. As he is probably aware from the chief medical officer's press release early in the new year, that is precisely what Professor Donaldson was warning us against. We have made real progress on meningitis C, but a vaccine is not yet available for the other strains. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make more progress on those strains; of course we do.
  The example of meningitis C demonstrates the importance of technology. The case is often made against the national health service that it lags behind other health services which have a better proven record in dealing with some health issues. Sadly, even in this country, people very often assume that the NHS is not up to scratch. However, meningitis C is a case in which the national health service has shown that it is leading the world, and that is capable of leading the world providing that we have the courage and the conviction to do the right thing, which is to put in the investment.
  It is sometimes risky to be at the leading edge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras took that risk, and it was the right risk to take. The consequence is that lives have been saved.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring also raised the issue of MMR vaccination. It is a very serious issue, and I should like to deal with it in some detail. I should start by saying that many parents understandably feel confused, and sometimes fearful, about the MMR vaccine. I fully understand those concerns, to which all hon. Members should listen extremely carefully.
  For us as parents, there are always real dilemmas when it comes to protecting our children. All of us want to do what is right by our children. As parents that is our responsibility. We want to obtain the best advice and the best information so that we can make the best decisions for our children. There is also no doubt that reassurances from politicians—and, in the past, from scientists and others, most notably in relation to the BSE scandal—have made people more sceptical about the advice and information that they receive whether from government or from other quarters. That is just a fact of life, and we all have to deal with it as responsibly as possible. That goes for hon. Members and certainly for the media who report on events in this place.
  994
  The Government also have a responsibility to do what is right. We have to make decisions and policy according to the best evidence available—as the hon. Member for Woodspring was calling for us to do as recently as Monday, in our debate on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
  If I may, I should like to read to the House the following statement:
  MMR is a very effective vaccine with an excellent safety record. It is recommended by the World Health Organisation and used in over 30 countries around the world. We believe that the support for the MMR vaccine among health professionals remains exceptionally high—despite recent claims to the contrary.
  All of the major health organisations in the UK support the MMR programme. Prior to the introduction of MMR there were thousands of cases of measles, mumps and rubella—and dozens of children died. This need not happen again. MMR is scientifically proven to be the safest and most effective way to protect children from disease.
  The new report by Dr. Wakefield does not present any evidence to change this view. There is a real concern about his advice that the vaccines should be given separately, since children would be left unnecessarily unprotected from these potentially serious diseases. We strongly recommend that children are protected with MMR and not left at risk.
  The vast majority of parents do get their children vaccinated but some parents remain concerned. We want to listen to these concerns and to work with parents and health professionals to provide reassurance and the best possible advice.
  That is not my reassurance. It is not ministerial advice to parents. It is not a statement by one politician or party or by a group of politicians or parties. It is the joint statement recommencing the use of MMR signed at the chief medical officer's national summit, on Monday. It was issued jointly by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Faculty of Public Health Medicine, the United Kingdom Public Health Association, the Royal College of Midwives, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, Unison, Sense, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Medicines Control Agency.
  Those are not the only organisations sharing that view. Just today, the World Health Organisation issued a statement that said:
  WHO strongly endorses the use of MMR vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy.
  The combination vaccine is recommended rather than monovalent presentation when available and the disease burden justifies its use.
  There has been no new scientific evidence that would suggest impaired safety of MMR. On the contrary, all results from vaccine trials published reaffirm the high safety and efficacy of MMR vaccine.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for the facts. Those are the facts of the situation.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman has to understand that he can quote as many organisations as he likes, but some parents will still strongly believe that they should not give their child the MMR vaccine. For those parents, the Government have closed the door on the option of single vaccines. If we want to increase immunisation rates, surely it would be sensible to allow those who wish to have single vaccines to have them.
  Mr. Milburn: I shall address the issue of parental choice in a moment or two if the hon. Lady—who I know has concerns of her own—will bear with me.

  995
  The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about coverage. As he knows, the coverage situation is not static at all. Rates of MMR vaccination started to fall in 1996, I think, and certainly they have fallen since. As he knows, coverage at age five is 93 per cent, but coverage at age 2 is 88 per cent. We know that those rates are not high enough and that action must be taken to increase them, to avoid precisely the type of measles outbreak that occurred very recently in Ireland, most notably in Dublin.
  There is barely a country in the world that prescribes single vaccines. Japan is the only country that I know of that prescribes them. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, between 1992 and 1997, Japan had, I think, 79 deaths from measles. In that period the United Kingdom had no deaths from measles. That is a salutary lesson for us all on the issue.
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I am coming to the hon. Lady's point, if she will be patient just one moment longer.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring asked what the Government have been doing in the past year or so, since he wrote to me on the matter and I replied to him commending his approach. In the past year, we have placed advertisements on television. Posters and leaflets on MMR have been sent to every GP practice. Additionally, parents have received direct mailshots on the MMR vaccination. As he knows, there will also be a major public information campaign to inform parents of the facts about MMR so that they can make the best choices for their children. That campaign is supported by all the organisations that I mentioned earlier.
  The policy that some people advocate—to put the health of children at risk by use of single vaccines—is fundamentally not about choice, but about chance. Parents always have the choice about whether to have their children vaccinated. However, I should make it clear that where licensed single jabs exist, or where unlicensed single jabs are legally provided, we have not prevented their use. What the Government cannot do, however, is to endorse a choice that the experts clearly believe will put children's health and children's lives at greater risk. It would be irresponsible of us to promote an alternative on the NHS that leaves children's lives to chance.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woodspring for the tone of his remarks this evening, which stands in some contrast to much of what he was saying only last week. I believe fundamentally that the position that his party has adopted has not allayed concerns but has, frankly, risked adding to them. If he wants to avoid damaging the case for MMR, I suggest that he gives unfettered support for the vaccine, without qualification.
  This is a point not only for the hon. Gentleman but for some sections of the media to bear in mind. This is not a bandwagon for anyone in politics or outside to leap on. It is a serious public health issue that demands responsibility, not irresponsibility, on the part of every politician who is committed to improving the health of our children.
  The same is true for some of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He raised serious issues concerning TB, sexual health and CJD. On TB, yes, it is true that cases have been rising. They have been rising
  996
  since the early 1990s. They are rising throughout the world. He asked what we have done in response. The Government have responded with a firm programme of action, including more surveillance, better screening, and now the development of more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the availability of the BCG vaccine, which is indeed a serious issue. He knows that we hit production problems with the one company producing the vaccine. Sadly, that was outside our control. He might not know that we have now been able to resume vaccinating schoolchildren in London, which is the area of highest risk. We are pursuing the matter actively. There are, sadly, not many manufacturers of the vaccine around, but we are doing all we can, and I hope that we will be able to make progress before too long.
  Dr. Fox: When?
  Mr. Milburn: I cannot say as yet, because we are still pursuing the matter. If I could give the hon. Gentleman an answer, I would.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about sexually transmitted infections. They have been increasing since 1995. For 16 to 19-year-olds, there was a 53 per cent. increase in cases of gonorrhoea and a 45 per cent. increase in cases of chlamydia between 1995 and 1997. That is why we are now piloting chlamydia screening for the first time, with a view to rolling it out across the country as a whole. That is also is why we have introduced a policy to offer all pregnant women an HIV test, to reduce maternal transmission. The early results are very encouraging, and I hope that we will be able to build on them. Those are the reasons why the Government's health promotion campaigns are so important.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of our sexual health strategy. I very much hope that we will be able to publish it within the next couple of months. What we cannot have, in the House or elsewhere, is a situation whereby people rail against high levels of unwanted pregnancy and then oppose making contraception more accessible. To do so begins to fall off the Richter scale of cant and hypocrisy.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about recombinant factor 8. My ministerial colleague, Lord Hunt, is considering precisely the issues that he raised, and had a meeting with the Haemophilia Society today to discuss that, among other matters.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of relative risk in relation to transmission of vCJD, particularly in surgery. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has already given a commitment that we will seek to get that information into the public domain, and that is the right thing to do. Relative risk is always a difficult issue, but it must be right to make the public aware. We must get away from a situation whereby politicians pronounce things 100 per cent. safe. We have to talk the language of safest, and assess what the risk is. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) is laughing—
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Not at what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.
  Mr. Milburn: If it was a private joke between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), perhaps they will share it with me.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to share the joke. When the Secretary of State said that nothing was 100 per cent. safe, I observed to my hon. Friend that that included the job of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Milburn: That was an extremely amusing joke. [HON. MEMBERS: "You asked for it."] I suppose I did—and I got it, as did the whole House.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the fact that, 45 minutes into this debate, we have not even discussed the greatest threats to public health: coronary heart disease and cancer? Does he share my anger that, when the Conservatives were in power, death rates from those diseases among poorer people went up, so that someone in Slough is twice as likely to die from coronary heart disease as someone in the rest of the county, which is much more prosperous?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a cogent and important point.
  I think that I have answered the questions that the hon. Member for Woodspring asked.
  Dr. Fox: There was one little point that the Secretary of State missed out. I am sure that the medical profession, as well as parents, would be interested in the possible availability, perhaps as soon as the end of this year, of pneumococcal vaccine. What are the Government's plans for rolling out that vaccine, given the success in controlling meningitis C?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health advises me that our position on new vaccines is that we will roll them out as quickly as we can, but we need first to check their effectiveness to ensure that the programmes that we institute have the impact that we want.
  Improving public health is about getting the vaccination programmes right and ensuring that immunisation programmes are relevant. It is also about assuring the public that those programmes produce the right result. We all have a part to play in that. There is, however, a wider issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly said, improving public health is also about tackling our country's biggest killers: cancer and coronary heart disease. It is about improving the health services that prevent illness as well as those that treat it. Fundamentally, it is about addressing the single most significant underlying cause of ill health and health inequality: the poverty that afflicts and divides our nation.
  On cancer and heart disease, after decades of, frankly, shameful neglect, services are finally getting the investment that they need. This year, these life-saving services will get more investment than ever before: an extra £450 million. There will be more money for new
  998
  drugs, for new equipment, for more staff and for more operations. There will be new national standards for heart disease and cancer care. Over the next few years, patients will see in the NHS the fastest improving cancer services anywhere in Europe.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring asked about preventive services. For the very youngest to the very oldest, such services are being expanded. They are receiving new investment. For the first time, newborn children are receiving hearing tests. Primary school children are being given free fruit as part of the biggest programme to support child nutrition since Mrs. Thatcher scrapped free school milk in the 1980s. Women aged over 65 will, for the first time, be screened for breast cancer. New screening programmes are planned for colorectal cancer and, when the technology is developed to make it effective, for prostate cancer too. Already in this country we now have the most comprehensive smoking cessation services anywhere in the world, available to the seven in 10 smokers who say that they want to give up smoking.
  Miss Kirkbride: Tobacco consumption is going up.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) says, from a sedentary position, that tobacco consumption rates are rising. I am afraid that that is the factual inaccuracy peddled by the hon. Member for Woodspring in our debate on Monday. Although consumption rates were certainly rising for smokers overall right up to the point when the previous Government left office, the latest figures suggest that tobacco consumption is now falling. I believe that the measures that we have taken and that we plan to take—most notably the banning of tobacco advertising—will help protect the people who are most vulnerable to the dangers of smoking in the future. Those are young people, children and teenagers.
  Underpinning all of our efforts to improve public health is the Government's commitment to address the causes of poverty that condemn so many to poorer health and shorter lives. This debate is about the public health agenda. The greatest public health challenges facing our country will never be addressed unless we deal with their fundamental causes—poverty of income and aspiration, lack of educational attainment and employment, and discrimination and social exclusion.
  When we came to office, one child in five lived in a household where no one worked. Three million working-age people were out of work and had been dependent on benefits for two years or more. Four million children were living in poverty in 1995—three times the number 20 years before.
  The health gap had widened too. In the late 1970s, death rates were over 53 per cent. higher among men in social classes 4 and 5 than among men in social classes 1 and 2. By the late 1980s, the health inequality gap had widened to 68 per cent. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove thinks that that is something to smirk about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have a running conversation from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Milburn: We all know the Conservative position on issues of poverty and inequality. The hon. Member for Woodspring summed it up when he said:
  Poverty, poverty, poverty—la, la, la … it is just boring for Conservative Members.—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
  Poverty might be boring for the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members, but it is a sad fact of life for very many of our constituents. It has direct health implications. We shall not make the progress towards securing the healthier nation that we want until we secure a fairer society. That is what the Government are committed to—opportunity for all, and improving health for all. We are making new investment in health services, in prevention as well as treatment, and new vaccination and screening programmes. All of that is coupled to the Government's national crusade to end child poverty in a generation.
  That is the path to better public health, and we are making progress along it.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome this opportunity to debate important issues of public health. Taken together, they constitute an agenda that should be the starting point for health debates in the House more often than is generally the case.
  Although public health in Britain has improved over a long period of time, there is still a great deal to be worried about. Britain has the highest number of underweight babies in Europe. According to Government figures, there are 1 million children living below the poverty line who do not qualify for free school meals. Fuel poverty is still a problem too. According to latest figures from the National Energy Association, 8 million households cannot pay for the warmth that they need. Finally, the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy and birth rates in western Europe.
  I welcome the NHS plan's attempt to address public health, and particularly the fact that there is to be more screening, although I believe that that needs to go even further and that more resources should be made available for capital expenditure in new technology. I also welcome the work of primary care groups and primary care trusts in identifying and registering those who are at greatest risk of ill health, and also the setting of national health inequalities targets.
  It bears repeating that the state of public health depends on much more than just the state of the national health service. Much public policy in other Departments has a significant impact on public health outcomes. Equally, however, Britain's record on public health cannot be divorced from the state of the national health service. Many of our health problems stem from under-investment over a long period of time.
  Many avoidable health problems have been exacerbated by a lack of nurses, and the lack of a co-ordinated public health programme that could have prevented many of the problems that the NHS has struggled to deal with. It is worth remembering that the number of nurses recruited fell from 37,000 in 1983 to 6,000 in 1995.
  Other factors over the period also give cause for concern. In 1979, there were free sight tests, but people now pay £17 or £18 for the tests. Dental charges have risen 400 per cent. since 1979. Both those changes present significant barriers to health for those most in need of it—the poor. However, the charges make little significant contribution to the Exchequer.
  1000
  As I say, many other factors beyond the immediate issues of the health service make an impact on public health. For example, the doubling in the crime rate, the disastrous public transport privatisations and deregulations, and the refusal—until this week—to implement a tobacco advertising ban were all significant public health failures of the past 20 years. It is only by addressing such background issues that we will bring about a significant improvement in levels and standards of public health.
  I noted earlier that Britain has the highest rate of underweight babies in Europe, at 7 per cent. Lord Patel, a gynaecologist, says that he has
  clearly demonstrated a strong link between low birth rate and the low socio-economic group of the mother.
  Low birth weight has also been linked to adult diseases such as hypertension, heart disease and diabetes.
  The Government should commission research into what constitutes a healthy income. Historically, rates have been based on political expediency, rather than on scientific principle.
  Another concern has to do with school nurses, and the availability and quality of school health education programmes. We need at least another 500 school nurses, as teachers cannot be expected to provide health care as well as education. Dedicated expertise is required to meet the needs of the school-age population. In addition to the other postcode lotteries, we have a postcode lottery of health education. There must be a radical shake-up of the system, with better partnerships between the NHS, social services and local education authorities to ensure total availability to schools and their pupils of nurses and health visitors.
  Liberal Democrats want there to be a statutory right for every child to have access to an independent health professional. We also want every school to have a named health professional provided through the local primary care group or primary care trust. In due course, we should like to see the creation of a national service framework on school health, with benchmarks and targets for improvement.
  According to the Government's own figures, there are 1 million children living below the poverty line who do not qualify for free school meals. That is a cause for alarm, and it must constitute a priority for action. We support the Government's free fruit scheme for four to six-year-olds, but we hope that there will be scope to expand it to include older children. Malnutrition is a significant factor in health inequalities. Good eating habits and health education, supported at school, are vital.
  Health inequalities must surely be one of the greatest concerns to all those with a sincere interest in public health. In the United Kingdom, people are twice as likely to die early in the poorest areas as in the richest, according to the UK Public Health Association.
  Dentistry charges also promote inequalities. Access to NHS dentists is declining in many areas, as dentists drop out and move to private provision only. We believe that there is a need to do everything possible to bring more dentists back for at least part of their time into the NHS, to protect the poorest from ill health.
  We also think that more help is needed in particular areas on the issue of water fluoridation, particularly in the light of York university's findings on its benefits.

  1001
  Areas with fluoridated water, either natural or added by the water companies, show as little as half as much tooth decay as areas without.
  Dr. Fox: Would the hon. Gentleman go all the way with that view? Is it his party's policy to recommend fluoridation throughout the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Harvey: We think that fluoridation should be available and that it should be a matter for local decision. There are great natural differences in the water in different parts of the country. That provides a logic for there being local decisions. Local authorities should have a greater responsibility for public health and should be the bodies to take responsibility for it, if need be by taking account, through a referendum or by other means, of the wishes of the local population. We certainly believe that fluoridation should be available as an option in all areas throughout the country.
  It is also very important for eye check-up charges to be abolished. There is no greater impediment to making any improvement in public health than charging people for basic, routine tests which should be provided free as a matter of course.
  I mentioned that fuel poverty is still a real problem. According to the latest figures, 8 million households cannot afford to pay for the warmth that they need. One in five lone parents reports damp affecting his or her children's health, and 22 per cent. of lone parents have no central heating. These are important factors determining health outcomes.
  In 1998 there were far more extra deaths due to temperature drops in Britain than in the rest of Europe. In the UK, there was a 31 per cent. increase in deaths in the winter compared with the rest of the year, whereas the figure was only 14 per cent. in Sweden, 10 per cent. in Norway and 12 per cent. in Germany, according to House of Commons Library figures. Those are serious factors that have a real impact on health outcomes. Ending fuel poverty would mean fewer visits to GPs, fewer hospital admissions and fewer prescriptions.
  The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy and birth rates in western Europe, with birth rates twice those in Germany, three times those in France and six times those in the Netherlands. The Government aim to halve those rates by 2010. That could be viewed as unambitious, but without proper co-ordination, and particularly the involvement of authorities on the ground at community level, I think that they will struggle even to meet those targets.
  Evidence shows that some groups of young women are more likely than others to become pregnant: women from large families, those in lower socio-economic groups, those in families headed by lone parents and those with low levels of academic achievement. Resources, therefore, obviously need to be targeted and channelled effectively.
  Some areas have rates of teenage pregnancies five times higher than those in other, more affluent areas. There is specifically a comparison between the Southwark area and the Chilterns. These figures are sometimes compiled by local authority ward, and there was a point in the mid-1990s when a local authority ward in my constituency—this may strike people as improbable and
  1002
  cause raised eyebrows—had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the country; higher than any inner-city area, for example. So the matter is not as simple as identifying certain big cities that need to have all the money ploughed into them, while other areas—typically rural areas or southern areas—may be assumed not to need it. That is a long way from the truth. The facts are rather more complex. We must look at the wider causes, and all the agencies dealing with these age groups will need to be involved.
  The burden of sex education should not always fall on teachers, some of whom will not be best qualified to give advice on these subjects. The Secretary of State mentioned that he hoped very much to bring out his sexual health strategy within the next couple of months. I welcome that, although it must be said that it seems to have had an extraordinarily long gestation period. I hope very much that when it comes it will tackle the issues involved head on. [HON. MEMBERS: "It may be an elephant."] The gestation period might imply that, but I hope that it will be rather more nimble and fleet of foot and will not kowtow to those in certain elements of the tabloid media who seem able to whip themselves up into a state of frenzy about the very things that are most needed to tackle some of these complex issues. Those countries that take a more progressive approach to these matters seem to have the best outcomes. I hope very much, therefore, that the target audience will not be the editorial writers on some of the newspapers to which I have referred.
  Dr. Harris: Is it not surprising that the Conservative party is whipping against moves toward greater access to emergency contraception, given the evidence from other countries where children, young people and teenagers are not having any less sex than they are, I think prematurely, in this country? That evidence shows that better access to such contraception decreases the amount of teenage pregnancy, teenage abortion—which I know particularly worries the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), as it worries all of us—and teenage births.
  Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend makes a series of very good points. My advice to him is never to be surprised by anything that the Conservative Whips do.
  According to the Public Health Laboratory Service, there was a record number of new HIV diagnoses in heterosexual females in 1999. That is cause for serious alarm. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made some pertinent points about the increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases over the past five years. Perhaps it is in no small all part due to the fact that, after the worries about AIDS which broke out in the 1980s and carried through into the early 1990s, there has probably been far less observance of safe sexual practices in recent years than there was before that. I think that that is in no small part due to the general perception in society and perhaps in the media that, because the AIDS epidemic has not reached the sort of numbers that were originally predicted, the whole problem has somehow or other been beaten. It certainly has not. If the growing incidence of these very serious conditions is an indication that people have become more relaxed about them, they are wrong to do so, and this lack of caution has potentially dangerous consequences. It must be a matter of concern to all of us that there are an estimated 30,000 HIV infections in the UK, with a third of them undiagnosed.

  1003
  The tobacco advertising ban, which started its way through the House on Monday, and some of the commitments the Government have made in their NHS plan, are welcome signs that the Government are taking the public health agenda seriously, We gladly support them. But there is still a long way to go to put right some of the UK's real problems. That is why we should like to see a Minister of public health not in the Department of Health, but in the Cabinet Office, bringing together relevant policies across all Government Departments. Putting the important questions of public health at the very heart of Government is the surest way to making the further improvements that all of us in the House, of whatever colour, want to see.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: I shall be shorter than I might have been, in the light of the way in which the Opposition have staged their debate. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) leaves the Chamber, I should like to draw attention to the motion. I am puzzled; it is worded in a weasel way. What is the purpose behind it? One might have expected a full-frontal attack on the use of MMR vaccines. The hon. Member for Woodspring did not do that, for which I am sure the House is grateful. I will say more about that in a moment.
  Is it simply coincidence that we are having this debate when there is what I call the "Daily Mail tendency" debate in the press on MMR? Conservative Members do not have the courage of their convictions to join in that debate. They want to sail close to the debate for the sake of cheap publicity, but they will not come out with it.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that part of the duty of the Opposition is to articulate in this place—the proper forum for debate—in a measured way issues that are of grave concern and are receiving a substantial airing in the media?
  Mr. Hesford: The hon. Gentleman is clearly upset at what I say. I do not retract anything of it. Perhaps he could deal with my point about coincidence. Why are we having this debate now? I see that the hon. Gentleman is not about to rise.
  Mr. Hammond: I am happy to rise, and the hon. Gentleman will hear more when I wind up. The debate is being held now because matters of great public concern are being aired in the media, and there may be misinformation about them. We believe that when issues of great public concern are being debated, it is right and proper that they should be aired in this place, in a measured way, and the Government should be given a proper opportunity to respond.
  Mr. Hesford: So would it be wrong for us to have in mind a slight bandwagon tendency?
  Mr. Peter Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the House should ignore matters that are of concern to the public and deal with issues that are not of concern to them?
  Mr. Hesford: I have to say—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear the answer;
  1004
  they want to speak among themselves. [Interruption.] What Conservative Members wish to debate is a matter for them. I am simply seeking to understand why they want to debate this now.
  I should like to touch on what I learned from the meeting that the all-party group on primary care and public health held on the important issue of MMR. As I said in my earlier intervention, an all-party approach was taken. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health came; we had an excellent debate, and heard from several eminent sources. The hon. Member for Woodspring asked for a cross-party approach on the issue, yet he failed to attend that meeting; he failed to adopt that approach. As a result of that meeting, there were several important press items affirming public confidence in the MMR vaccine.
  Three issues arise from this question. The first is the safety of the immunisation programme. I know that there are concerns about that on the Opposition Benches. There are also the consequences of non-immunisation if people do not take part in the programme. The two cannot be dismissed—they have to run side by side. There is also the question of press treatment. I am afraid that in this country, certainly at the moment, the press are letting themselves down as the fourth estate in dealing with these issues. That makes the job of my hon. Friend the Minister that much more difficult in getting across a proposition that the scientific community agrees on. That is a barrier to proper debate and to putting across the information to my constituents and others.
  At the meeting of the all-party group in July, we heard from Dr. Liz Miller, a very senior person at the Public Health Laboratory Service. She dealt with what I will call the rogue report—the report by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his team, based at the Royal Free hospital. Rather curiously, one of the 37 studies, including that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, was also based at the Royal Free and found that the adverse reports and the allegations were founded on data that were either not robust or had been disproved. Does the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) accept that the Wakefield report is nonsense, and that there is nothing in it?
  Dr. Miller went on to discuss—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) thinks that the entire debate is a joke.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might best advise the hon. Gentleman to move on with his speech and to turn as deaf an ear to sedentary interventions as I am occasionally indulgent enough to do.
  Mr. Hesford: Your indulgence is well known, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and appreciated from time to time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will react in the same way.
  Dr. Miller went on to discuss a paper in The Lancet in 1999 which reviewed the idea of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The main findings of the paper were as follows: there was no clustering of onsets shortly after the MMR vaccine, no difference in age at diagnosis between cases and the rest of the population, and no difference in MMR vaccine take-up between cases and the rest of the population. The paper also found that a rise in diagnosed autism cases pre-dated the use of the MMR vaccination, and that the rise continued while the vaccination uptake was constant—or, as we have heard, falling.

  1005
  The Wakefield report was designed around invalid evidence. Dr. Miller stressed that the Wakefield report was entirely fallacious. Curiously, she concluded that a paper by Chadwick, et al, published in an august journal in 1998, decided that there was no link between MMR and alleged side effects. One of the authors was the same Dr. Wakefield.
  Among the other contributors to the all-party meeting was Dr. Tony Jewel, a director of public health and a member of the UK Public Health Association. He made several telling points. If the public are to be re-engaged in accepting public vaccination programmes, the concept of no-fault compensation in vaccine damage cases should be sympathetically considered. Those involved in immunisation could have that at the back of their minds, if it were felt relevant to them as parents.
  Dr. Jewel stressed also that the public must be reassured, with complete transparency in the communication of reports dealing with MMR research and use. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of her comment on that occasion that the Government need to take vaccination safety seriously and must demonstrate that there is no cover-up in the dissemination of safety studies.
  Another participant in that all-party meeting mentioned a worrying subset of the consequences of non-immunisation. I do not know how widespread this is, but Dr. Ruth Gallatley, Bradford's district immunisation co-ordinator, pointed out that some of the people withdrawing from immunisation programmes are ABC1s—members of the upper and middle classes.
  Miss Kirkbride: Shameful.
  Mr. Hesford: That was not a class-based point but, like one of Pavlov's dogs, the hon. Lady immediately shouts out. Dr. Gallatley was making the point of what she described as herd immunity—secured by a massive uptake in the immunisation programme; we have heard that MMR uptake used to be as high at 92.5 per cent. The figure is now below 90 per cent. Within herd immunity, certain people can hide behind sensible immunisation by a sufficient number of others, so that they can make so-called life style choices. That is worrying, because those are just the people—opinion formers—who should be sensible enough to stick with the programme and ensure that as many families as possible adhere to it.
  I am not sure of the point of the motion or why we are debating it at this time. I am absolutely sure that, through my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Government are on top of the public health agenda. Far from being concerned about the Government failures that the motion suggests, the opposite is true. I commend my hon. Friend's work and look forward to working with her and others in future on this particular programme.
  8.43 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to base my remarks on my views about the MMR vaccine. To that extent, I commend my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for bringing forward a motion that allows me to talk about my concerns relating to MMR and the public health debate on that issue.
  1006
  Before I begin, I am a tempted to respond to the remarks by the Secretary of State, who made a typically gung-ho speech of the kind that he often gives to the House but which always contains some inaccuracies. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that all parties would like a reduction in the number of people who live in poverty and its elimination, which is a desirable outcome in terms of public health. However, the Government must accept that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening under Labour, just as it widened under the Conservative Government—for which they castigated us. I am not sure whether they are as successful in their aims as the rhetoric from the Treasury Bench would have us believe.
  The Secretary of State pointed out that, back in the 1950s and 1960s, there were extremely poor outcomes for people in the lower social classes—much worse than today. One of the reasons for that is that many hundreds of thousands of people worked down the mines and that killed them; yet during the period of the changeover from coal to gas, it was the Labour party that was most vociferous in saying that the change should not take place. However, the change clearly had public health outcomes—sadly, because of the reasons that I outlined.
  My concerns this evening are about the MMR vaccine. As you probably know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am promoting a private Member's Bill that I hope will receive its Second Reading on 9 February. It is about MMR—especially my desire that the Government should offer choice to parents so that their children can receive separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. It is right and proper for the Government to offer choice; the Government were wrong to close the door on that choice when they came to office by failing to continue to licence the single vaccinations, which had been available, for those parents who—no matter what—will, for perfectly legitimate reasons, want a single vaccination programme. Parents should be allowed that choice.
  The Government are reaping the consequences of their decision. One of the main reasons for the fall in the number of people being given the MMR vaccination and thus the reduction in inoculation throughout the general population is the fact that they are given only the MMR vaccination or nothing—they no longer have the option of a separate vaccination programme. That is a great mistake and one for which the Government will rue the day unless they decide—sooner rather than later—to accede to the demand for parental choice.
  Dr. Harris: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's thoughtful remarks. If she saw evidence that the introduction by the NHS of more choice in that matter might lead to more deaths from measles or to more cases of mumps and congenital rubella disease, would she continue to say that the provision by the NHS of the choice of what appears to be a less effective treatment was a price worth paying?
  Miss Kirkbride: I respect the hon. Gentleman in many ways—certainly as he is a medical professional—but I do not accept that there would be a price worth paying in the way that he puts it, nor do I accept that it is likely that he could show me evidence that would prove his point.
  I think that the evidence that we have heard so far in the MMR debate is flawed—a belief shared by many parents and which causes them to fear the

  1007
  MMR vaccination. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) asks why we are hodling the debate. It is obvious to most hon. Members—even to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Government Back Benches—that we are holding the debate because immunisation rates are falling to the point where we are in serious danger of an epidemic of measles. That could have extremely serious consequences.
  The way to boost immunisation rates so that children escape the possibility of catching measles is to offer parents the choice of separate vaccinations if they want them. That would lead to an increase in the number of immunisations. The MMR vaccination should also be available for those parents who are happy with it.
  The issue is fundamentally one of parental choice. It is about the nanny state saying, "You will have this vaccination or you will have nothing at all". Parents are not prepared to be bullied or patronised in that way. They must be given choice. They take difficult decisions on behalf of their children and do so with the best interests of their children at heart. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that they do not like that and that they have their own reasons for thinking that such choice is unacceptable or that it may lead to dangers. I do not accept their premise that it is more dangerous to offer single vaccinations. On the balance of probability, the greatest danger at present is that children are not being vaccinated at all. To boost rates by giving some vaccinations, because parents can choose the single vaccine programme, clearly has major public health benefits.
  I should like to put on record—the Minister would upbraid me if I did not do so—the fact that I am a big supporter of the public inoculation programme; it has been hugely successful and has transformed childhood mortality during the past 50 years—and increasingly so, as medical science has progressed. However, we should not blindly accept that every inoculation programme is fine and must not be questioned I. The volume of circumstantial evidence—I fully accept that it is circumstantial, but it is worrying nevertheless—that exists about MMR is a cause for concern. That is one reason why I am pressing ahead with my Bill.
  I understand why the Government have pursued a public information programme, costing £3 million, but they would have been better off putting that money into proper research that would truly allay parents' fears about the MMR vaccine. They should not assume that if they keep telling parents, they will eventually be believed. I am afraid that the public do not respect politicians—or, indeed, medics—to the extent that they are prepared to accept on trust a view expressed by either of those professions.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the BSE saga. I am afraid that we have to bear that in mind because when the BSE difficulties first arose, politicians and the chief medical officer said that there was no cause for concern and no reason to believe that BSE causes CJD. The truth is that we still do not know whether BSE causes CJD; we cannot prove it. We can say the same about the link between BSE and CJD as about the possible link between MMR and autism. There is no proof that they are linked, but some people believe that they are. Many people believe that BSE and CJD are linked, but some people believe that there is a link with MMR that causes autism in some rare cases.
  1008
  Since I decided to proceed with the private Member's Bill, I have received a huge postbag from anguished parents who are very upset that they do not have a choice. Parents, health workers and teachers have told me the story of their children. They have said that the personality of their children changed following the MMR inoculation. I do not know whether those changes are linked to the MMR vaccination, but I am happy to accept that the visible symptoms of autism occur at roughly the same time as the MMR vaccination. The problem is that a growing body of parents are concerned because they believe that there is a link.
  Research has been undertaken by maverick, but nevertheless respectable, professionals into the possible link between the MMR and autism, so we should ask questions. It is wrong that the Department of Health does not take the issue more seriously if it wants to strengthen public confidence in the MMR vaccination.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) clearly supported single vaccines on a pragmatic basis, which we can discuss, but he explicitly rejected the possibility of a link between MMR and autism on the evidence that he had seen. Is the hon. Lady saying that part of the motivation for her promoting single vaccines is that she fears that there may be a link and that she is not satisfied with the evidence that there is no link between MMR and autism or Crohn's disease?
  Miss Kirkbride: I am not satisfied that there is no link. I believe that there are reasons to be concerned. I do not say that there is a link, but I cannot say in all honesty that there is not.
  I am fortunate to have recently had a child of my own. I have to judge my reaction to public policy on the basis of the choices that I would make for my family. If I were to take my young son to have an MMR vaccination—fortunately, I do not have to do so for another year—I would do so with fear in my heart because of the queries that have been raised in my mind about the vaccine's safety, about which I should like further reassurance.
  Although there is no proof to support the concern of parents, there is a logic to it. They believe that if three live vaccines are given to children who, at the age of just over one, have a very immature immune system—certainly in this world where cotton wool and disinfectant are everywhere—there is a risk that the triple attack on the immune system may cause proteins to leak out of the intestine and cause brain damage. Some experts believe that children are being damaged in that way and think that it is a different form of autism.
  Hon. Members who disagree with those parents have to explain why autism is so much on the increase in this country. Perhaps it is being diagnosed more often, but it is still a subject on which all hon. Members must get many letters every week from parents of autistic children about them being statemented. Sadly, it is a common condition among the children of people who write to us, and we need an explanation.
  The evidence that the Department of Health has produced to reassure parents like me has done it no favours. The recent Finnish study of 1.8 million children has been used to prove that there is no problem, but the difficulty is that it did not find a single case of autism in all those children. That is statistically inconceivable,

  1009
  given the rise in the number of autistic cases. Not having found a case of autism worries me more than if it had told me that it had found a certain number of cases, because those would have been a statistical probability and have nothing to do with the MMR vaccination.
  The study asked GPs to report their findings on the children after four to six weeks, but that was not long enough for the symptoms of autism to become apparent. The study was self-selecting and did not address the problem of autism. In addition, since the MMR vaccine was introduced in Finland, there has been a fourfold increase in cases of autism. The Department should give a more detailed response to those serious issues. The figures and information that it has provided so far have not been good enough.
  The Secretary of State referred to Japan, on which he would not take my intervention, and the terrible case of 79 children who died from measles. The Department of Health has decided that that provides proof that single vaccines do not work. It has used the case to tell Conservative Members—and me in particular—that we are wicked because we advocate single vaccines and therefore a death sentence for our children. That is not true. Those children died because they were not vaccinated at all, which is rapidly becoming the case in this country. The huge crisis of public confidence in the MMR vaccine in Japan in the 1990s was caused—for want of a better description—by a rogue vaccine that would not have been licensed here either. It was rightly withdrawn, presumably on the advice of a body with equivalent responsibilities to the World Health Organisation.
  As a result, the Japanese public lost confidence in vaccinations against childhood diseases and their children were not given them. Some of those children sadly died of measles. However, they did not die because they received single vaccinations but because they received no vaccinations. It is wrong for the Department to say that we cannot choose to have single vaccines because of what happened in Japan. The false and partial information that it provides makes people who strongly believe in choice, as I do, unhappy about the truthfulness of the Department in giving parents the full picture of the public health implications of the vaccine. That is why we should offer parents choice.
  Clinics that administer single inoculations tend to leave a six-week gap between them. I accept that children are vulnerable to the diseases in that period, but that is nothing compared with the period of vulnerability if a child has no inoculations.
  Again, I upbraid the Department of Health. A back door was open to single vaccinations for those people who felt strongly about the issue. A clinic in Edinburgh and a clinic in south London, called Direct Health 2000, probably met with the Department's disapproval because they have the temerity to be private, but if the Department really believes that it is better for children to have the MMR vaccination, there is no reason why people should not use their own money to have the inoculations done singly at their own expense. However, both clinics have been told that they can proceed with a single vaccination programme only for named children who have already received a vaccination.
  1010
  It is wrong and stupid of the Department of Health to proceed on that basis. The clinics offered an option for the parents who felt strongly, but the option has been removed and the clinics have been given a stern reprimand about continuing to offer the choice. That has left an awful lot of parents disappointed that their one option of choice has been removed. The Department is foolish to be so bull-headed on the issue that it is not big enough to leave a bock door open for those parents who feel strongly.
  I should also upbraid the hon. Member for Wirral, West. He seemed to suggest that the answer to increasing immunisation rates is to offer no-fault compensation for children who develop autism. That would make everyone have the vaccination. No parent will say, "That's all very well. I do not mind if my child develops autism, because I'll be compensated.' That is not how parents think about their children. While they have a fear that has not been allayed by proper research, no-fault compensation will not be the answer.
  I suspect that I know why the Department does not want to reintroduce single vaccinations. Litigation is proceeding about the potential link with autism and compensation might have to be made available to those who have already been affected. Its lawyers are probably telling it not to give ground while the litigation is proceeding.
  I also upbraid the hon. Member for Wirral, West for his old Labour stance that, because ABC1s do not want the vaccination, there is no cause to worry. They form a big part of the population and they are entitled to their opinion even if he does not think that he represents them. That is another reason why the alternatives should not be rejected out of hand.
  The Secretary of State gave the impression that a speech like mine would create unnecessary fears and that it would be irresponsible to ask for single vaccines to be available to the general population. I reject that argument. It is irresponsible of the Department to continue, in its bull-headed fashion, to refuse to allow choice for parents. We do not live in the nanny state any more, however much Ministers would like to rewrite history. Parents are no longer prepared to accept on trust the advice of Ministers and some doctors. In a poll last week, health professionals also voiced their private concerns about MMR.
  The public are not prepared to respond with complete trust; they will respond by making their own informed decisions. If we want our children to be protected and want to preclude the possibility of a measles outbreak in the United Kingdom, in which some children might die, we have to offer parents choice. I hope that this debate and perhaps my Bill—if it gets an airing on 9 February—will do something to persuade Ministers that they are being deliberately obdurate and that the time has now come for a change in Government policy.
  9.4 pm
  Judy Mallaber: I decided to seek to speak in the debate when I realised that it was likely to focus on immunisation and vaccination, because I was so concerned that the current debate on MMR vaccination could affect public confidence in our immunisation and vaccination programmes generally. Given the fairly measured speeches by Opposition Members, I am surprised that the motion does not reflect that, but implies

  1011
  that there is a general problem with the Government's public health policy on immunisation and communicable diseases. In terms of reducing confidence in the MMR vaccination it would have been helpful if the motion had not referred to the vaccination programme in general. That concerns me.
  I was also surprised by the comments made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about CJD and the public believing that full information had not been made available. One of the first people to visit a surgery I held just after being elected to Parliament was a woman on her way to visit her son who was dying in a local hospital of CJD. She would not believe now that full information was made available during the years covered by the Phillips inquiry. I hope that the House will soon have a debate on the Phillips report, because it is important that the full facts emerge and that the culture of secrecy that prevailed is wiped away.
  The reason that I am so concerned that people should not have a problem with vaccination generally and that I am surprised at the terms of the Opposition's motion is rooted in one of the worst things that has happened to me since becoming a Member of Parliament. In summer 1999, while on holiday in Devon, I received a pager message from a member of staff in my constituency office mentioning the name of a small boy who had just died. The reason that message was so upsetting was not just that it told of the death of one particular boy, but that it confirmed that a village in my constituency had suffered a wholly inexplicable series of outbreaks of meningitis.
  Several deaths and other cases of the disease occurred in three separate outbreaks despite every measure being taken that would normally be taken to deal with an epidemic. No one in the world could explain the outbreaks. I spent much of that summer on the phone with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who was in Yorkshire, and other senior Government advisers who were on holiday in other places, trying to persuade them to grant the request made by my local health authority to get the vaccine that was just being trialled and had not yet been licensed into that village, because there was no other way in which to solve the problem.
  I was deeply grateful when that action was taken, and extremely relieved to hear of the latest results, which show what an amazing success that vaccination programme has been in tackling meningitis C. Far from talking about the failures of Government public health policy coupled with reference to immunisation programmes, we should recognise that the meningitis C programme and the flu programme have been among our major successes. We should applaud that, not suggest that all of the programmes are in danger. I am concerned about any lack of confidence in one programme spilling over into others.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that, when opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) specifically said that the motion was worded as it was so that he could make it clear that he was not suggesting that the Government public health policy was failing as a whole, but that there were certain failures that needed to be addressed?
  Judy Mallaber: I said that it was the fairly measured comments made by Opposition Members that caused my
  1012
  surprise that the motion did not explicitly recognise that attitude. Someone outside reading the motion would not have taken that point. I explicitly acknowledged that Opposition Members' speeches had been fairly measured.
  It is important that we applaud the successes of the programme. Before coming into the Chamber, I spoke to the southern Derbyshire consultant in communicable diseases. He told me of his fear that, once a specific illness had almost been eradicated, the public would not be so keen to get their vaccinations, leading to a danger that deaths would occur, whereupon the public would flood back, banging on the door, desperate to be part of the immunisation programme. My area and others have witnessed remarkable successes in terms of the incidence of and the number of deaths resulting from meningitis. As other speakers have said, we cannot be complacent. Even with the meningitis C programme, a number of people have still not been vaccinated. In the past year, cases of meningitis C in my area have arisen only among groups that have not yet reached the vaccination stage. There are still some who have not been treated under the programme.
  The trauma, despair and terror of a village and an area that is imbued by such a disease are horrendous; there is hysteria, upset and anxiety. As was pointed out, we still need to find a vaccination for meningitis B. Parents and families must be on their guard, and it is important for that message to keep going out.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health for the quick response that she gave when I informed her of local fears that the Public Health Laboratory Service would charge for the polymerase chain reaction—or PCR—test, which has been important in identifying what is going on in relation to meningitis. The test has been one of our major successes in public health policy.
  My neighbouring Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), was influential in setting the terms of the debate about the flu vaccine. She initiated a debate on the matter last year in the House and was one of those who argued for lowering the age at which free inoculations can be given. The response given to the vaccination programmes by health authorities and all those involved has been remarkable.
  I want briefly to mention broader public health issues. In my area and elsewhere, a number of imaginative initiatives are ensuring substantial success on the broader public health agenda, in direct contradiction to the terms of the motion. That success has occurred not only because we are putting massive extra resources into the health service—it is hard to see how the Opposition can square their incredible policies of tax cuts and maintaining spending—but because of the new structures and the way in which they are working.
  I should like to give a couple of examples. The House recently discussed smoking cessation. My area now has smoking advisers, who are available in general practitioners' surgeries. Doctors can pass patients on to such advisers, who will provide assistance and talk to them about what giving up smoking will mean. If people decide to go ahead with the programme, the advisers can give them free nicotine patches. The chief executive of my primary care group said that her mother had been smoking 60 cigarettes a day for the past 40 years. As she pointed out, if she can give up because of the counselling programmes, anybody can.

  1013
  We have also managed to reduce waiting times for GPs by introducing another initiative under which counsellors work in their surgeries. When people go to a doctor with mental health problems, whether they have been caused by bereavement or specific problems in their lives, they can be referred immediately to counselling services within the surgery. Such provision is now available throughout Amber Valley. It is reducing waiting times and dealing with the difficulties that arise when GPs do not have time to get to the bottom of what is happening to the patients who present themselves in their surgeries.
  There are a number of other imaginative new initiatives, such as the use of physio-triage within GPs' surgeries. The range of initiatives that have been introduced are making a genuine and important impact on public health. That is down to the new structures that are in place, which are enabling us to spread best practice and to make resources available in GPs' surgeries while also linking them into services in local community hospitals and acute hospitals.
  My Conservative opponent in the forthcoming election has just been reported in the local paper as saying that she will conduct a survey of all the local health service failures and that she will pass on the results to the hon. Member for Woodspring. I hope that she will leaflet Ripley market, as I have done recently. I was astounded to meet two people in one hour who had just left Glenfield hospital. They were extremely bright after triple heart bypass operations.
  When I mentioned the incident to the chief executive of my primary care group, she assured me that it had not been deliberate and that she had not planted the people there simply because she knew that I was leafleting. The group had decided to set up a major programme to deal with triple heart bypasses. I do not know whether it has a conveyor belt programme, but we are starting to make an impact. We need new structures as well as resources.
  We have had major successes in public health. They have helped people who suffered unbelievable trauma in my constituency. I am grateful for the support and help of Ministers in dealing with some of those difficulties.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I point out to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who spoke in generally measured tones, that I could reveal a different story about coronary care in Worcestershire and the west midlands. However, that is not the subject of the debate.
  The debate is important and has been measured. I welcome that. It was intended to be about issues of real anxiety to people outside the House. Those issues deserve to be addressed seriously. I was genuinely puzzled by the comments of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford), who questioned the point of the debate. He spent much of the early part of his speech doing that rhetorically. He should realise that this place exists to address the concerns of people outside it and that it is not irresponsible but responsible to deal with them. Were the hon. Gentleman in his place, I would ask him what was the point of Parliament if not to tackle such anxieties.
  I was encouraged by the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Amber Valley. She began to draw us towards the two important issues that underlie the debate. How
  1014
  does society and Parliament debate risk? How do we deal with anxiety about risk? Those questions are relevant not only to health but to many aspects of public policy. For example, they apply to transport policy. Despite the tragic incidents on the railways, it remains safer to travel by train than by car. The shift from trains to cars increases the risk to which people are exposed. However, people feel that they are in control of a car and not of a train. They are making a mistake because they are at the mercy of other drivers, but they believe that they are safer.
  On MMR, people want to take control and make decisions about vaccinations for their children. If a child contracts a disease, the parents will not blame themselves. However, if they believe—rightly or wrongly—that their action in getting the child immunised has led to autism or some other condition, they will blame themselves. That is a crucial difference.
  There has been a series of health scares in our nation. They have often been unfounded, but they have led to declining respect for professionals and politicians who advise on health. We should be genuinely worried about that. I therefore emphasise to the hon. Member for Wirral, West, who is now in his place, that it is important to conduct a measured debate on the subject.
  We should also be frank about our lack of knowledge of diseases. I am inclined to believe that we have the necessary knowledge to reassure people about MMR. However, I am glad that my children are old enough for me not to worry about making the decision. We do not have such knowledge about other matters.
  When I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, we spent a long time considering the link between tuberculosis in badgers and in cattle. We have no idea what the link is. The science is unclear and almost non-existent. We may believe that we know through anecdotal evidence, but we do not. That is often the problem in public health matters. Bovine tuberculosis is not irrelevant to the debate because there is increasing evidence of farming families contracting the bovine form of the disease. That seems to be related to their exposure to cattle, and is a matter of considerable anxiety.
  We must grapple with the reality that we do not know how to manage risk and that sometimes we cannot reassure people because we do not have absolute knowledge.
  MMR has been the focus of the debate, and I, too, will focus on it. The World Health. Organisation recommends an immunisation rate of 95 per cent. to avoid the spread of a new epidemic in the population. Our immunisation rate for the three diseases controlled by MMR is only 88 per cent., and in some parts of the country the rate is only 75 per cent. We are therefore at genuine risk of epidemics of the three diseases involved.
  I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will ask themselves again where the real balance of risk lies. I know that this is a difficult and controversial area, but I have to say that Governments are no longer respected by people out there: they are no longer trusted to give secure and safe advice on public health policy.
  The Secretary of State said clearly at the Dispatch Box that MMR was the best way of dealing with the problem, but even if the Government are entirely right I do not think that he will reassure people. Many will still be worried and will opt for no vaccination at all. That could have serious consequences, as we seem to see already

  1015
  from the current statistics. I do not say this in a partisan way, but the Minister cannot duck it: immunisation rates have declined over the past few years, having reached about 92 per cent. in 1996–97.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will realise that in public health policy it is sometimes necessary to choose the least worse option. I recommend a twin-track approach. There should be reassurance—I welcome the reassurance that the Government are trying to give about MMR—but parents who are not reassured should be offered the alternative of treatment on a single-vaccine basis. I realise that that would involve problems in doctors surgeries and a greatly increased work load. It is not an easy solution, and it is not without its costing problems. It should, however, result in an increase in overall immunisation rates.
  Some children will be exposed to measles, mumps and rubella for longer than is necessary, which is bad: I do not rejoice in it at all. It is possible, however, that we shall manage to raise the overall immunisation rate to the critical 95 per cent. level.
  This has been a good-natured debate, which has approached the issues seriously. However, I ask the Government to consider whether what the official Opposition are saying, in a non-partisan fashion, may represent the best way of avoiding the spread of dreadful diseases whose effect is often underplayed now that we have lost our experience of them.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I hope that my tones are not quite so measured—I cannot say that I am prepared to sit here and take lessons from the Tory party about any health issues.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford), I asked myself why the motion had been tabled. My first thought was that there is a bandwagon, and that Tories cannot not resist jumping on to every bandwagon that comes along.
  My impression was strengthened by the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). If this is not a bandwagon, it is certainly sensational. Somehow, he developed a selective memory. He told us about his letter. I was quite amused by it—it she wed the Opposition spokesman supporting the Government and deploring the scaremongering about MMR. Then, he was unequivocally happy to back the Government in their fight against that scaremongering. However, the hon. Gentleman suddenly forgot about that and, a year later, qualified what he had said. If that is not jumping on a bandwagon, I do not know what is. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will be able to tell us that the Conservatives are backing the Government's campaign to ensure that as many children as possible are given the MMR vaccine. The Secretary of State made it clear that not doing so would put children's lives at risk, and that it would be irresponsible to act otherwise.
  I then asked myself why people should concentrate on MMR. Part of the reason is sensationalism. I noted headlines about not just MMR but CJD, sexually transmitted diseases, asylum seekers—anything that feeds prejudice. I am not prepared to enter into a mealy-mouthed debate; I will say my piece, and not mince
  1016
  words. It is bizarre to have the Tories lecturing us about anything. They have all developed a selective memory; they seem to have forgotten those 18 years.
  There are lots of problems and challenges in the health service and lots of things that we have to put right. Cancer kills 127,000 people a year in this country. That is a matter of public health that has not been mentioned in the debate. Heart disease and strokes kill 214,000 people a year; accidents kill 10,000 people a year; and 4,500 people die by committing suicide each year. All those are public health matters that have not been mentioned. One of the reasons for the Conservatives concentrating on a very narrow subject is that they do not want to debate the big picture because it paints them in a bad light.
  Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the reason for focusing on a narrow area is that there is a large degree of consensus on these matters. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Mr. Fox) opened the debate, he made it clear that he wanted to focus on the issues on which there is a large degree of consensus across the House.
  Mr. Heppell: It is only fair that the electorate should know what we agree on. If, at the end of the debate, Conservative Members want to tell the House that they agree with the Government on this issue, fine. However, it is also worth while pointing out the matters on which they do not agree with us. Okay, there are problems, and they need to be tackled. The Conservatives have conveniently forgotten that they did not tackle those problems for 18 years, and that they also created others. The reason why the Conservatives will never have the same commitment to the national health service and to public health as the Government is simple: we support the national health service in practice, but we also support it in principle. The Tories do not. That is a fact.
  I was born in 1948—the same year that the national health service was created. We have something else in common: we are both products of the Labour party. The Labour party created the NHS against Tory opposition. The Tories did not oppose only the detail, the mechanics, the structure and the cost of the national health service; they opposed it in principle. They were ideologically opposed to the national health service, and if we scratch a Tory nowadays we find that they still are. That is why they starved the NHS of the resources needed for it to thrive and grow during those 18 years.
  The average real-terms growth in the NHS during the Tories 18 years was 3 per cent. We have now doubled that and are putting in 6 per cent. That is 6 per cent. not just for one year, but for three years. By 2004, the national health service will have received three such increases, which is an unprecedented investment by the Government.
  Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that. You may have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was reading a newspaper earlier; in fact, I was looking at a document published by my local health authority. It is worth referring to it to illustrate the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Government, in terms of the resources that have been put into the national health service. Under the headline "Making a difference this winter", it describes the extra money that has been put in to get the service through the winter crisis. It states:
  Making a difference—the NHS … is changing for the better.

  1017
  It is right. The NHS is changing for the better.
  The document goes on to describe the new ear, nose and throat centre at Queen's medical centre, and the £6.2 million state-of-the-art accident and emergency department being built there. No wonder Prince Charles always goes to Queen's medical centre when he falls off his horse.
  The document goes on to describe gearing up for the winter, social care, the boost in critical care funding, NHS Direct and the extra money put in for the flu vaccine. I could go on and on. There are other things that the document does not mention—for example, the new scanner at Queen's medical centre or the new treatment for cancer at City hospital. All those improvements have happened in the short time that we have had a Labour Government. The people of this country were deprived of such improvements under the previous Government.
  The debate was deliberately narrowed for two reasons: to grab headlines and to ensure that the broader picture was not discussed. The Tories have a record on public health that none of them can be proud of. Our record is not perfect, but we have made a start and we are going to get there. We are going to turn the NHS into not just what it was before the 18 years of Tory rule, but what it was when it was founded—the envy of the world.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I wrote a note to myself saying that the tone of this brief debate was by and large measured and constructive, but that was before the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) made his contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) set the tone at the outset, and that tone was reciprocated—initially, at least—by the Secretary of State, who gave a measured response. Rather later in his speech, he moved off the subject that my hon. Friend had addressed and read out a section from his draft election manifesto. We have lots of opportunities to discuss issues on which there is scope for confrontation across the House, but tonight's debate represented an attempt to hold a constructive exchange on issues on which there is a good deal of consensus.
  The hon. Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and for Nottingham, East asked why we chose to hold the debate. I make no apology for reiterating that one of the Opposition's jobs is to raise issues that cause public concern or consternation so that they can be debated and responded to in the House. Governments of any colour may not always like that because it implies a measure of accountability, but it is no use Labour Members dismissing as scaremongering any Opposition attempt to use the proper forum to debate issues that are clearly of great public concern and are receiving an airing in the media, perhaps accompanied by misinformation. This is the proper place to hold a measured debate, to raise the issues and to allow the Government to respond to them.
  I say to those hon. Members who raised such points that today's debate has no single immediate cause. We are responding to a growing sense of unease in the country that infectious diseases, which we thought had been consigned to history, are once again posing a threat and
  1018
  that the response to the threat, and the public's perception of it, is inadequate. The price that we pay for maintaining the upper hand in the battle against infectious and contagious diseases is eternal vigilance. We question not the Government's commitment to maintaining that fight, but their tactics for delivery and whether they have perhaps allowed themselves to be distracted from that most fundamental of Government health responsibilities.
  There is a serious debate to be had on a serious subject, and it is not all gloom. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring acknowledged the apparent success of the meningitis C vaccination campaign—I am happy to do so as well—which appears to have nipped in the bud an extremely disturbing growth in reported cases. We are also happy to acknowledge that, after a rocky start, the flu vaccination campaign this winter has been a positive triumph of the will and effort of people working in the national health service over formidable logistical obstacles. That programme was largely delivered as a result of their commitment and hard work.
  Those are the successes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, they show that, where the commitment and the political will are present and when the Government work with the mood of public opinion, great things can be achieved. However, tempting as it is to dwell on the successes, our duty of vigilance requires us also to focus on some less successful aspects of public health policy and to articulate to the Government the frustrations and concerns that people up and down the country clearly feel. Nowhere is that public frustration and concern clearer than over the triple-dose MMR vaccine, which, inevitably, has been the centrepiece of the debate.
  Mr. Hesford: In my speech, I asked for confirmation of whether Opposition Members reject the Wakefield report.
  Mr. Hammond: I shall specifically come to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment.
  The problem, simply stated, is that concerns raised about the safety of the triple-dose vaccine have led immunisation rates to fall to a level that puts the population at risk of epidemics. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring clearly asserted that the weight of scientific evidence supports the combination vaccine. I am pleased to state that again.
  We may know best, but the challenge is to convince people in the real world. Since the first publication in 1998 of the Wakefield findings, the Government's policy has not wavered for a moment, and has denied any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. To support that, they have cited the large body of scientific evidence that points in favour of their position. I went to a briefing meeting in the Department of Health two and a half years ago—when the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities was Minister for Public Health—which was attended by concerned Members from both sides of the House. When the question of the single-dose vaccine was raised, the Minister and the chief medical officer, who were both present, firmly rejected the idea and made it clear that parents should not be offered an alternative for fear of weakening the arguments in favour of the combination vaccine.
  I am sure that that was the right position for a Minister to take then. It may still be the right position for Ministers to take now. However, in his remarks, the Secretary of State

  1019
  was ruling out for all time the possibility of needing to reconsider the matter if vaccination rates do not recover. When the Minister for Public Health winds up the debate, will she reassure the House that the Government will promote safety and arguments in favour of the combination vaccination, but that they will continue to take a pragmatic approach if vaccination rates do not recover?
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this issue. Would he just remind the House of precisely what happened on a previous occasion when, as he says, decision makers wavered in relation to a suspected problem with a vaccine—in this case, the whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s? If he does not remember, I can tell him that one publication cited a link between the vaccine for whooping cough and brain damage, which was subsequently proven to be wrong. In the meantime, whooping cough vaccine was not distributed in the way that it had been and the country had a whooping cough epidemic, which included many deaths. Would the hon. Gentleman remind the House of that and learn the lessons?
  Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has already made it clear-I hope that I am making it clear again—that we will support the Government in seeking to convince public opinion of the efficacy and safety of the combination vaccine. However, when the Minister winds up our debate, will she confirm that the Government's commitment to the combination vaccine is pragmatic, based on the fact that they believe that the population protection that is needed against measles, mumps and rubella will best be achieved by promoting the combination vaccine? There should not be a dogmatic commitment, based on an obscure idea that one solution alone must be promoted. I urge the Minister to reassure us that the Government will take a pragmatic approach to our debate this evening.
  Fiona Mactaggart: What would the hon. Gentleman say to a constituent who came to my advice surgery last Friday and said that she was worried about the triple vaccine? She said that the single vaccine must be fine because a doctor from the Opposition said so. Why, she wanted to know, could she not get it on the NHS? That is what my constituent believes Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say something to her, which I will show her in Hansard and which, perhaps, will reassure her.
  Mr. Hammond: What I would say to the hon. Lady and to her constituent is what I have already said: the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the Government's case, which we are happy to support. However, in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State himself acknowledged that public confidence in the weight of scientific argument and the way in which politicians present that argument is at an all-time low. There are all sorts of reasons for that. However, we live in the real world and have to deal with the situation that exists. The Government know that. Their challenge—we support them in meeting it—is to deal with real public perceptions, not with the perceptions that we would like them to have.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: No; I shall not give way again. I should like the Minister to have plenty of time to reply to the debate.
  I should like to ask the Minister a question. I have a letter from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who wrote to me on the subject in September 1998, when she was Minister of State at the Department of Health. She said:
  The UK Health Departments have been working on producing publicity material for parents and their medical advisers … The aim is to provide a factual briefing on the issues to enable parents to make an informed choice about the MMR vaccine in consultation with their health professional.
  The Government seem to acknowledge that parents have to make an informed choice, and they are about to embark on a major advertising campaign to provide information to parents so that, as the Secretary of State said earlier, they can make an informed choice. However, what informed choice does the Minister want parents to make? Surely she does not want to open the door to parents choosing the option not to vaccinate their children. Will she confirm that it would be a disaster if parents were to receive the message that the choice that the Government are seeking to empower them to make could ever be not to vaccinate their children?
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I shall not give way; I have only a moment left.
  Today's debate has inevitably focused on the MMR issue, as it is very much in the public mind. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring also drew the House's attention to the TB situation and the explosion of TB cases. It is no longer just a third-world problem but a problem that affects us here. London has the highest incidence of TB of any city in Europe. The Secretary of State sought in his speech to address some of those issues.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us just what the Government are doing to ensure that we never again become vulnerable to a single-source supplier of vaccine, which for technical or other reasons can of course fail.
  Will the Minister also tell the House what the Department is doing to assess the port of entry screening programme which is a vital part of the battle to combat TB in the United Kingdom?
  I want to ensure that the Minster has plenty of time to respond to the comments made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have raised the issue of failures in public health policy, particularly in relation to immunisation and communicable diseases, because that issue greatly concerns the public and all hon. Members. It is necessary that Ministers have an opportunity to address such issues in this place, which is the proper forum to consider them.
  It is impossible to switch on a television without becoming aware of the extent and depth of public concern and confusion about some health issues, especially MMR. I repeat that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the contention that MMR is a safe and efficacious response. However, concern will turn to anger if the public do not perceive that the Government are sensitive

  1021
  to their concern and are dealing with it. It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account for their performance in that most fundamental role of the modern state.
  Since Edwin Chadwick and the great Public Health Acts of the 1840s and 1850s—long before the welfare state or the concept of a health service that is universal and free at the point of use—it has been established that a core, central role of Government is to secure the public health by preventing the spread of communicable disease.
  As technology and sanitation have developed, we have come to take for granted the gradual elimination of disease after disease that was once a killer but has become little more than a historical curiosity—so much so, that we may sometimes forget the Government's vital public health role. It may be the unglamorous end of the Health Department's work, but it is vital that Governments are not distracted from that vital work by higher-profile health policy matters.
  Nothing is as fundamental to the health and welfare of the British people as a sound public health policy, effectively implemented, to ensure the continued protection of the population from the killer diseases that we have, mercifully, all but forgotten, and from the newer scourges that threaten.
  Tonight's debate is a gentle wake-up call, a reminder that Government must focus on this most fundamental role of the state, and a reassurance to them that, if they go about that business with a sound policy, pragmatically implemented and sensitive to public opinion, we will support them in it.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to this debate on an extremely serious subject—ultimately, lives are at stake. The tone of the debate has been largely measured, but I am not so convinced that the content has been as responsible as the tone would suggest.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked several questions about communicable diseases, many of which were fully answered earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) welcomed many of the public health measures in the NHS plan. I welcome his comments, although he rightly pointed out how far we still have to go. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) voiced her concerns about MMR, while my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) set out strong evidence offered by scientific bodies in support of the vaccine.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) talked poignantly about the impact of meningitis C vaccine in her constituency. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) returned to MMR and referred to the problems of risk and the precautionary principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) argued clearly that the big problems come from poverty, ill health and the big killers: cancer and heart disease.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to TB, to the BCG vaccination and to the risks posed by monopoly suppliers. We are certainly concerned about that, although there is not always an easy way of getting round the problem.
  1022
  My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley described the meningitis C campaign. It is a wonderful story for public health and an immense tribute to the NHS that the programme was implemented so quickly. Early results show that it prevented 500 cases of and 50 deaths from meningitis C in the past year. That is 50 tots and teenagers who are still arguing with their parents and taking their lives for granted because of the vaccine.
  MMR has been debated in great detail. Many parents of young children will feel confused and worried following the reports that they have read in the newspapers these past few weeks. Any parent of young children will know quite how much we worry about whether we are doing the best by our sons and daughters. That is why the debate about MMR is so deadly serious. We need to take parents' concerns on MMR seriously. We must take seriously every question raised about any drug or vaccine.
  That is exactly why we have referred every single claim or allegation about the safety of the vaccine to committees of experts on both vaccination and the safety of medicines for them to examine in great detail. That is why we referred all the latest Dr. Wakefield allegations to them and why we will investigate any new allegation that is made.
  We have gone to great lengths to publish every detail of the advice and to make it as widely available as possible, and sought the views of all the independent health professional bodies with an interest in the area. They have all told us very clearly that MMR remains the safest way of protecting children against deadly diseases. They have found no evidence of any link with autism, even though they have studied all the research—from Finland, Sweden, the north Thames region and Dr. Wakefield. They found that children would be at risk of infection for longer with the single vaccines and that, ultimately, their lives would be at stake.
  Those experts have no interest in denying the risk or in putting children's health at risk. They spend their lives trying to improve children's health. We have asked them many times to advise us on this subject, and their advice every time has been the same. We need to take that advice very seriously. Their recommendation on the question of single jabs is clear. They say that to introduce a programme of single jabs on the NHS would be less safe than MMR, and would put children's lives at risk.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the case of whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s. The then Government introduced to the NHS a less safe alternative in response to scares about the pertussis component of the DTP vaccine, even though those scares proved unfounded. When the alternative was offered on the NHS—and effectively endorsed by it—everyone opted for it. They felt that, because the NHS was endorsing the alternative, it therefore must be the safest option for their children. The result was that there were 200,000 cases of whooping cough, and 100 deaths.
  Exact comparison can never be made between decisions taken on previous occasions with regard to different vaccines. Every case is different and must be considered on its merits, taking into consideration the evidence from the experts. However, we have an obligation to listen to the advice that we are given as well as to the anxieties expressed by parents.

  1023
  If we ignored that expert advice and, on the basis of no evidence, endorsed on the NHS an alternative that the medical experts say would risk children's lives, we would be betraying parents and children. As a parent, I would feel betrayed by the NHS and by the health professionals that let such a thing happen.
  Miss Kirkbride: I respect what the Minister has said and accept her point about the NHS, although I should prefer her to change the way in which she approaches the problem. However, why do not the Government allow the private clinics that offer the separate vaccines to proceed? Why have the Government clamped down on those clinics' ability to make the licensed vaccines available?
  Yvette Cooper: There is no clampdown. Under the Medicines Acts, the Medicines Control Agency has an obligation to ensure that unlicensed products are supplied according to very strict rules, because there is a serious concern to prevent unlicensed products that may be unsafe from being improperly supplied. The single vaccines available for use in the UK are unlicensed. They have not been through the MCA's safety checks.
  I welcome the more measured tone displayed today by the hon. Members for Woodspring and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but the media have not received their comments in the same way—and they know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) gave the very clear example of a person who came to her constituency surgery and said that the single jabs must be better "because the man on the telly—Liam Fox—said so, and he's a doctor, isn't he?"
  I have listened to what Conservative Members have said in the debate. They have been carefully dancing around the issue, but they know the medical evidence well. They also know well how their remarks are being interpreted, in the media and by parents. I caution them over their apparent promotion of s single jabs as a safer alternative, because they know that that is how their remarks are being interpreted.
  Judy Mallaber: Did my hon. Friend the Minister note that, when one newspaper tried to raise a scare about the meningitis C programme, no other newspaper picked it up? That was because no one jumped on the bandwagon, with the result that the story was killed. However, the scare this time is being recycled time and time again. Does she agree that that must be because comments by other people are being used to support some of those fears?
  Yvette Cooper: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks. We all know that as parents we are very susceptible to worrying dreadfully about whether or not we are doing the best for our children. That is exactly why as politicians we have a responsibility not to manipulate parents' fears and to make sure that we give them absolutely accurate information—as much information as possible, but also access to the proper medical advice.
  Mr. Hammond: I should like to give the hon. Lady, as a token of my commitment to the triple vaccine, the information that all three of my children aged under seven
  1024
  have been vaccinated with the triple-dose vaccine. That is the best commitment I can give the hon. Lady in public and on record.
  Yvette Cooper: I am glad to hear that endorsement of the safety of the MMR vaccine. It clearly accords with what the medical experts and advisers are telling us.
  All of us in the House have to be very careful about playing politics and trying to pronounce as politicians on the safety of medicines and on the safety of vaccinations. As many hon. Members have said, in this area as a result of previous health scares, and in particular the BSE issue, what politicians say is not necessarily taken seriously by the public, and certainly not by the media.
  There are broader public health matters that I wish briefly to turn to, issues that many hon. Members have mentioned. Public health is about so much more than communicable disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) is absolutely right: the big killers in this country are cancer and heart disease, and the biggest public health issue is addressing the health inequalities that underlie the big killers.
  The gap in life expectancy between rich and poor rose between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s, for men from 7.5 years to 9.5 years and for women from 5 years to 6.5 years. Those health inequalities have grown worse. That is a public health tragedy and outrage.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that the gap was because the men all worked down the mines, and Labour should not have opposed closing the pits. I find it absolutely astonishing that the devastation of the coalfield community should be described as a positive public health measure. Does the hon. Lady have any idea of the impact on the health of entire communities suffering unemployment, poor and crumbling mining communities where depression and drug abuse are rife? What she said shows shocking ignorance about the public health problems that face this country.
  This Government have set in place an entire programme to tackle all the dimensions of public health. The NHS plan and the White Paper on saving lives are to tackle the most deep-rooted causes of the problems. Perhaps the most important thing that we can do to improve public health is to meet our target to abolish child poverty. No other measure will do more to improve public health.
  I should like to return to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) about the programme sure start. Sure start is perhaps the most important public health programme that we have. It will involve eventually spending £500 million a year on families with children under four in low-income areas, improving their access to health care, education and child care, and delivering what local parents want. My hon. Friend asked the Opposition whether they would match our spending on sure start, and they would not answer. They said that they would match our spending on health, but they have not said they will match our spending on sure start. On the biggest measure to tackle public health that we are introducing across this Government, for them not to be able to make a commitment to back sure start, providing health for families across the country, shows a pretty weak commitment to tackling public health.

  1025
  The Government believe that at the beginning of the 21 st century it is morally wrong that our chances of a healthy life still depend on who we are, where we were born, what our parents do and how much they earn. Under the previous Government, health inequalities and child poverty rose. This Government are determined to bring health inequalities down and to tackle the fundamental, immoral divisions in our society. We will bring them down—a return to a Tory Government would push those health inequalities back up again. That would be a public health tragedy.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 317.

  Division No. 86]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baldry, Tony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Faber, David

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  1026

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walter, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Spring, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willetts, David

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. James Gray and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allan, Richard

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbett, Robin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Crausby, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darvill, Keith

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrougt)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Breed, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burstow, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chidgey, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clapham, Michael

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  1027

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gidley, Sandra

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hain, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Martlew, Eric

  Harvey, Nick

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Merron, Gillian

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Moore, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Norris, Dan

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Joyce, Eric

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Kidney, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rogers, Allan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooney, Terry

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lammy, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruane, Chris

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Linton, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shaw, Jonathan

  1028

  Sheerman, Barry

  Timms, Stephen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Todd, Mark

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Ms Joan

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

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  Webb, Steve

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  White, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wilson, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winnick, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 133.

  Division No. 87]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Borrow, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allan, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burstow, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Casale, Roger

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caton, Martin

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chidgey, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  1029

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Joyce, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Lammy, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lock, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonnell, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hain, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maxton, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Merron, Gillian

  Healey, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  1030

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Norris, Dan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter L

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pond, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Purchase, Ken

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rogers, Allan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Tyler, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Tynan, Bill

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Webb, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willis, Phil

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wills, Michael

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wilson, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wood, Mike

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Bercow, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Butterfill, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Cash, William

  Fallon, Michael

  1031

  Flight, Howard

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fraser, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tredinnick, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Trend, Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Viggers, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Luff, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Malins, Humfrey

  M r. James Gray and

  Maples, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House condemns the widening health inequalities between 1979 and 1997 and the failure of Conservative governments to acknowledge health inequality or address the growing health gap between rich and poor; and supports initiatives to improve public health and tackle health inequalities, including new vaccination programmes for influenza and Meningitis C, the allocation of an extra £450 million to improve cancer and coronary heart disease services in England, the extension of the breast screening programme to women aged between 65 and 70, the strategy to reduce teenage pregnancies, the largest-ever investment in smoking cessation services and the proposed ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's announcement today about an inquiry into the events surrounding the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury
  1032
  (Mr. Lidington) about whether questions tabled subsequent or previous to that may be sub judice, would you, Mr. Speaker, give a ruling as to whether questions asked by Members about the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), relating to his conduct and any relation that he might have had with Hinduja brothers will come under the same rules as those relating to the inquiry and to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool?
  Mr. Speaker: I have already given a ruling but, perhaps to clarify the situation, I would say that it is not the type of inquiry that would be covered by the sub judice rules. However, the contents of any ministerial reply have nothing to do with the Speaker.
  Mr. Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean that the Table Office will accept any parliamentary question relating to the conduct of the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East, in relation to that event?
  Mr. Speaker: The Table Office will accept any question that is in order. If the hon. Gentleman is refused, I am sure that he will come back to me.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the fact that an inquiry is taking place does not raise any procedural difficulty in respect of the tabling of questions. Will you confirm that that is correct?
  Mr. Speaker: Absolutely no problem is raised as far as procedure is concerned.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That—

  1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and

  3. At that meeting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and

  (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

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

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 30th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 31 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  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. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 48, 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. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

  (i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Police Grant Reports (England and Wales) not later than Seven o'clock; and

  (ii) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government (Finance) not later than Ten o'clock. —[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Motion made, and Ouestion proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr Robert Ainsworth.]
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Paul BurstowI am grateful—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is out of order that those who are leaving the Chamber should walk in front of the hon. Member who has the Floor.
  Mr. Burstow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an important matter in the House tonight. My interest in the subject of mobile phone masts stems first and foremost from cases drawn to my attention via my constituency mailbag. Last year, my local council, the London borough of Sutton, received 22 prior notification submissions from telecommunications companies. Although not all of them proved controversial locally, several have caused considerable concern among many of my constituents.
  Most recently, residents of the Belmont area of my constituency were alarmed by a mast proposal that fell outside the borough boundary and within the Banstead and Reigate district council area. Although remote from residents in that council's area, the mast would have been close to residents in my constituency. As a consequence of the lack of confidence felt by many residents about the possible effects on health of such masts, great concern arose. I am pleased to say that, owing to a combination of effective lobbying by residents on issues affecting the amenity of the locality and other planning matters, and the diligence of my colleague Councillor Tony Wallace, that proposal was ultimately rejected by the relevant planning authority.
  That application and concerns that have arisen from earlier cases led me to seek tonight's debate. While preparing my speech, I became aware that several other hon. Members have already raised these issues, but there are some relevant matters on which I should like the Minister to expand. In particular, I hope that he will be able to tell me what progress has been made in acting on the recommendations of the independent expert group on mobile phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart. In the last Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled two early-day motions calling for the urgent implementation of the Stewart report's proposals. It would be helpful if the Minister spelled out the Government's response to that report and the timetable that is being followed for the delivery of the recommendatins.
  As the Stewart report noted, the current privileged development rights of the telecommunications industry leave residents' anxieties outside the equation for evaluating the proposals. The timetable for the current system of prior approval leaves little time in many cases to do much more than pay lip service to public consultation. That lack of consultation feeds a lack of confidence in the safety of masts.
  I welcome the Government's consultation on requiring all new telecommunications masts to be subject to full planning application procedure. Such a requirement would mean that the process would be subject to much

  1035
  greater public scrutiny in future. When that consultation process ended, 301 responses had been received. My council wrote on 16 October, and I shall quote an extract from the letter:
  In order to enable greater resident involvement the London Borough of Sutton fully supports the aim contained within the consultation paper of requiring telecommunications companies to submit planning applications for all mast proposals. In this way it will be possible to be inclusive and to ensure that representations can be obtained and if necessary they can be heard within a public forum. All too often at present the telescoped timetable does not enable residents to feel that their views art being fully considered. In particular as the prior approval format does not constitute a planning application it therefore cannot be considered under the same set of rules. This dual approach is both difficult to understand and very frustrating for residents. It is those residents who are most affected by the mast proposals.
  I agree with those comments from the London borough of Sutton. Those anxieties have driven the questions that I tabled last year and my support for several early-day motions.
  It would be useful to have the opportunity to review more of the responses to the Department's consultation. Unfortunately that has not been possible, despite an undertaking that was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), in a written answer on 9 November to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). He asked when the responses would be published. The reply assured him:
  Copies of all responses, other than those where the respondent has indicated that the response is to be treated as confidential, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 348W.]
  The responses were not in the Library yesterday, however. Inquiries by Library staff to the parliamentary Clerk to the Department revealed that the responses were still being considered, and that, consequently, the Department had not released them to the Library. Why could not hon. Members see the responses until the Department had finished analysing them?
  Given the changes that the new generation of personal communication networks will effect, have the Government assessed the number of new masts that will be required? Personal communication networks have a lower range and more masts will be required to achieve the same coverage as existing technology provides. Telecommunications companies have statutory licences from the Government and they will therefore be able to install equipment on the public highway. That right already exists. People are worried that there will be a proliferation of the columns that contain the masts and aerials.

  One representation to the Department, by Kent county council, estimated that 100,000 new masts would be required to provide the new licensing arrangements. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether that was a fair estimate. If it is not, what constitutes a reasonable estimate in the Department's view?
  Such expansion requires more than piecemeal development control and case-by-case consideration. Will the Government therefore accept the proposal of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that network operators should be obliged to consult local planning authorities on their plans for the whole network as it affects a specific locality? That would minimise the environmental impact.
  1036
  Will the Government remove the permitted development rights for existing masts that have been approved under current prior approval arrangements? What monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that the industry seriously considers the sharing of masts when possible and appropriate?
  On planning guidance, can the Minister tell the House when it is intended to introduce the new planning requirements? When will they be in force?
  Other questions are relevant to anxiety about the proliferation of masts. By dint of being statutory undertakers, telecommunications companies have the ability to exercise compulsory purchase order powers under an order by the Secretary of State. There is a possibility of CPOs being used to acquire land to allow such masts to be erected. If there is to be an increase in the number of bases required to secure the roll-out of the new licences and new technologies involved, what assessment has been made of the implications for a possible increase in the number of CPOs?
  Finally, let me deal with an issue that is probably on the minds of many of my constituents and, I suspect, the minds of constituents of many other hon. Members. I refer to the debate about the public health effects of both ground stations and mobile phones. The Stewart report took the view that, according to the balance of the evidence, there was no general risk to the health of people near base stations; however, it accepted that there was evidence of subtle biological effects from radiation generated by such stations. Indeed, evidence collected for a report by the World Health Organisation suggests that low level doses have a cumulative effect on health.
  As a result of the Stewart report, the Government have committed themselves to the precautionary approach recommended by the report, but that approach has tended to concentrate on phone use rather than bases. Of course it is welcome that more information and guidance is being provided, especially for children who may use mobile phones, but I understand that the leaflets that are meant to be provided with phones are not always provided by retailers when people buy them, and that there is thus no guarantee that the information is being conveyed.
  In the United States, New Zealand and many European countries there are rules governing exclusion zones around base stations, which in some cases extend to 500 m. That was recommended by the Stewart report, but on my reading the Government have not acted on its recommendation to date. The Stewart report also recommended auditing:
  We recommend that an independent, random, ongoing audit of all base stations be carried out to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded outside the marked exclusion zone and that the base stations comply with their agreed specifications. If base station emissions are found to exceed guideline levels, or there is significant departure from the stated characteristics, then the base station should be decommissioned until compliance is demonstrated.
  Can the Minister say when the programme will begin, and how many bases will be visited each year? Such audits could play an important part in restoring confidence in the safety of the technology.
  My constituents and my local authority want all mast applications to be properly considered through the planning process, so that there is proper public debate and scrutiny. They also want to know that the bases are being audited, and that the expansion of the network—which

  1037
  many of us will welcome, because it will provide access to the technology and allow better use of mobile phones and all the attendant communications aids—will not take place at the expense of the precautionary principle.
  10.43 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Barstow) on securing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss an important issue which, as he said, has caused concern not just in his constituency but far more widely.
  The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, appreciate that because of the nature of the planning system, which enables cases to come to the Secretary of State on appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any individual cases. I shall therefore concentrate on the wider issues that he raised.
  I confirm that our general policy on telecommunications development is to encourage and facilitate the rollout of a modern national telecommunications network, while at the same time protecting the environment. The Government are also responsible for protecting public health. In recent years, public concern about the possible health implications of mobile phone masts—and, indeed, handsets—has been increasing. I shall try to address both issues.
  The Government take the health concerns extremely seriously, which is why in 1999 they asked their statutory adviser, the National Radiological Protection Board, to set up an independent expert group on mobile phones. Under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, the group considered concerns about the health effects of the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. It conducted a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research and gathered a wide range of views. I shall return to that matter.
  The telecommunications sector is a vital part of the UK economy. It currently represents 3 per cent. of gross domestic product and network operators employ more than 213,000 people. There are more than 32 million telephone exchange lines and, in addition, some 30 million mobile phone subscribers. However, those figures do not tell the whole story. Telecommunications also provides a business backbone. Many industries are improving their routes to market through use of advanced telecommunications, the internet being a prime example. Business efficiency is also helped by such things as e-mail, short messaging services, mobile communications and video conferencing. The Government have as one of their core objectives making the UK the best place in the world to do business electronically by 2002.
  The growth in the UK mobile communications sector over the past 15 years has been remarkable, and that growth is set to continue with the third generation of mobile telecommunications systems about to come on stream. A modern network brings a number of social and economic benefits, but the drive to develop the industry must be balanced against environmental objectives. The Government attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the environmental intrusion caused by telecoms network development. The land use planning system provides the tool to achieve that balance.
  1038
  Licensed telecommunications code system operators are authorised by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, commonly referred to as the GPDO, to install specified telecommunications apparatus without needing to make a planning application to the local authority. However, our current planning framework includes well-established policies to protect the countryside and urban areas—in particular, our national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest. The installation of any telecommunications mast in such areas is subject to a requirement to submit a planning application. In addition, a planning application is required for the installation of any telecommunications mast in excess of 15 m in height, wherever it is to be sited.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that many objections from residents result from the blank cheque planning permission granted by the previous Government? If the present Government amended the legislation to require planning permission to be sought for even the smallest mast, that would go a long way to appease residents such as those in St. John's ward in Colchester, who oppose such an application.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I shall come to in a moment. I assure him and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that I shall deal with it.
  The GPDO approach nevertheless incorporates safeguards for other types of telecommunications development, including masts not exceeding 15 m in height. The main safe guard is provided through what is known as the prior approval procedure, which gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecom masts.
  The local planning authority has 28 days to carry out that process in respect of masts not exceeding 15 m in height on buildings or other structures. Following amendments to paragraph 24 of the GPDO in 1999, we extended that period to 42 days in respect of ground-based masts not exceeding 15 m in height and required the operator to erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed. Those amendments were introduced to provide the public with a clear opportunity to comment to the authority on the siting and appearance of ground-based masts.
  Local planning authorities are strongly encouraged to undertake any additional publicity that they consider necessary to give people likely to be affected by the proposed development an opportunity to make their views known. Where the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on local amenity, it is able to refuse approval. I have not completed my remarks on that subject, and shall come back to it later, so I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
  One concern often expressed is the proliferation of telecom masts. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam specifically raised that issue. Planning policy guidance underlines the Government's view that the number of telecoms masts should be kept to the minimum consistent with an efficient network. Our policy is to encourage mast and site sharing, while recognising that it may not be the optimum environmental solution in every

  1039
  case. A couple of slim and unobtrusive masts, for example, may well be better than one cluttered one. In general, however, the principle is to encourage mast-sharing and limit the number of new masts to the minimum consistent with the objective of establishing an efficient network created
  Consideration of sharing is the starting point and conditions attached to individual operating licences granted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry include a requirement to investigate mast sharing before seeking to put up any new mast.
  Mr. Burstow: Given that a condition is attached to the licences, will the Minister tell the House whether or not the DTI has arrangements to monitor compliance with that condition to ensure that that happens?
  Mr. Raynsford: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I am more than happy to discuss it with him and write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to the important issue of the arrangements that we are making for monitoring in a moment.
  The Government expect operators to provide evidence to the local planning authority that they have considered the use of existing masts, buildings or other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. With evidence on the suitability of alternative sites, the operator can discuss with the local planning authority, at an early stage, whether a shared mast would be the preferable solution for a particular development.
  As well as base station location, sympathetic design has a key part to play in minim sing the impact of telecommunications development on the environment. The Government are keen to see operators working together to investigate the use of new technologies, materials and designs that will allow masts to complement or merge unobtrusively into their surroundings. The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members will know of imaginative approaches that have been adopted including, in one extreme case, an installation in Guildford cathedral concealed in the figure of an angel. Such possibilities will be appropriate and entirely satisfactory in some cases, but not, perhaps, in others. However, that area needs to be pursued.
  We are sure that there is scope for further work to develop new and more sympathetic mast designs, drawing lessons from successful design, siting and landscaping solutions in this country and abroad. If operators can give local planning authorities and local people an idea of potential design solutions for particular sites, that will help to promote better dialogue and a collaborative approach to devising effective environmental solutions and help to make mast development more acceptable to the public.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the DTI whether a procedure or guideline could be issued? An advertisement from suppliers or manufacturers could state what they wanted and what the network expected. In effect, it would ask for tenders from individuals who would conform with the design requirements and fit in with the local authority conditions. People would be interested in doing that because there
  1040
  might be some commercial benefit. I know people who would welcome the opportunity to have a mast in an appropriate place, and would far rather that such a development was led by the landlord, rather than by an initiative on behalf of the mobile phone operator.
  Mr. Raynsford: I hear and understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He will accept that the operator has to ensure that the location of the mast ensures that it is an appropriate complement to the rest of the network. Therefore, I would not wish to encourage too many initiatives of that nature from individuals who may be keen to have a mast in a location where they would probably receive some income for it, but where it is of no great benefit to the extension of the network or may not be ideal on amenity or health grounds. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, but there are limitations on how far the initiative can be taken for bodies other than the operators, who understand what is required to achieve the most efficient network.
  As I mentioned earlier, we take very seriously public concerns about the possibility of health effects. The Stewart group published its report on 11 May last year. It concluded that
  the balance of evidence to date does not suggest that emissions from mobile phones and base stations put the health of the UK population at risk.
  The group also said, however, that it is not possible to say that exposure to radio-frequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects. It therefore recommended that a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile-telephone technologies be adopted until more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available.
  On mobile telephone base stations, the group's report concluded that
  the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases.

  The Stewart report suggested that public consultation under the prior approval arrangement was not working satisfactorily, notwithstanding the improvements made in 1999. It also suggested that lack of public consultation was a major cause of grievance in people who suffered from loss of amenity when base stations were erected. It suggested that many people felt excluded and disempowered by the existing planning arrangements and that resulting frustration could also have a negative effect on people's health and well-being.
  For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary. Specifically, it recommended that
  for all base stations, including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning procedures.
  In their initial response, published on 11 May, the Government welcomed the group's report and accepted many of its recommendations. In particular, the Government accepted the recommended precautionary approach as advised by the report.

  1041
  I wrote to council leaders, in June 2000, setting out what is being done to take forward the planning recommendations, and reiterating how local planning authorities should continue to treat applications for mobile telephone development. Local planning authorities should continue to deal with planning applications for telecommunications on the basis of the current legislative arrangements and policy guidance.
  The letter explained that, as part of its precautionary approach, the group's report did not recommend a ban or moratorium on the construction of mobile telephone masts and that we had no plans to introduce one. It made it clear that the Government's acceptance of a precautionary approach was limited to the specific recommendations in the group's report and the Government's response to them. The letter clearly stated that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. It also said that it is for the decision maker—usually the local planning authority—to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
  It is the Government's view that if a proposed development meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines—commonly known as the ICNIRP guidelines—as recommended by Stewart on a precautionary basis, it should not be necessary for a planning authority, in processing an application, to consider the health effects further. It does not mean that individual local authorities should introduce their own precautionary policies for determining applications for mobile telephone base stations. That would be a recipe for confusion and uncertainty.
  Following preliminary discussions with the Local Government Association, other Departments and the mobile telephone industry, we issued a consultation paper, on 31 July, which sought views on whether any changes to planning legislation were necessary, and what those changes should be. In addition to asking questions about possible changes to the legislation, the consultation paper contained draft revised planning guidance.
  1042
  Currently, guidance to local planning authorities is to be found in four separate places: PPG8; Circular 4/99—"Planning for Telecommunications"; the code of best practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures; and the drift circular on "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields", which was issued for consultation in December 1998.
  The revised draft PPG8 is intended to rationalise, consolidate and update that range of guidance. A separate code of practice will be retained, but revised so that it reflects any changes to the planning arrangements for masts. The revised code will, we hope, be a joint document agreed by Government, local authorities and the industry, as the present one is.
  As part of the revised PPG8, we will give advice on how to take into account health concerns, including the advice that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications, as explained earlier. Our draft revised guidance suggests, among other things, that operators should include with their applications a statement that the apparatus will meet the ICNIRP guidelines if and when it is up and running.
  The consultation period ended on 31 October. Approximately 365 responses were received—rather more than the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam heard about. We are currently analysing them and will announce any changes as soon as is practicable. I will arrange for the responses to be placed in the Library as soon as possible. I noted his comment on that. I cannot give him a date when the conclusions will be announced, but we are working on this as a matter of priority.
  We are also working on an audit of base stations—the hon. Gentleman asked about that—and have in hand a number of other measures. As my time is running out, I will write to him on the other issues that he has raised, and I assure him of our commitment to finding a way forward that meets our twin objectives of allowing the system to roll out satisfactorily so as to ensure the extension of telecommunications while at the same time taking into account the environmental and health concerns that have been expressed by the public.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    SPORT
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(99)643, a Commission Communication entitled 'Community Support Plan to Combat Doping in Sport', European Union Document No. COM(99)644, the Helsinki Report on Sport and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 23rd November 2000, submitted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport relating to the Declaration on Sport; considers that the special nature and role of sport should be recognised in applying Community rules to sporting activity; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Europe is effectively represented in the deliberations of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
    The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 5.

    Division No. 79]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clapham, Michael

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clelland, David

    Allan, Richard

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Coleman, Iain

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Colman, Tony

    Connany, Michael

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cooper, Yvette

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Corbett, Robin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ballard, Jackie

    Cousins, Jim

    Banks, Tony

    Crausby, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Beard, Nigel

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Darvill, Keith

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Davidson, Ian

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dismore, Andrew

    Berry, Roger

    Dobbin, Jim

    Betts, Clive

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blackman, Liz

    Doran, Frank

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Dowd, Jim

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Drew, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Borrow, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Efford, Clive

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Breed, Colin

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burnett, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burstow, Paul

    Flight, Howard

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Flint, Caroline

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gardiner, Barry

    Caplin, Ivor

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Casale, Roger

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Caton, Martin

    Gidley, Sandra

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    1044

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Goggins, Paul

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McCrea, Dr William

    Grocott, Bruce

    Macdonald, Calum

    Grogan, John

    McDonnell, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    McFall, John

    Hain, Peter

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hanson, David

    McNulty, Tony

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    MacShane, Denis

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harvey, Nick

    McWalter, Tony

    Healey, John

    McWilliam, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Maxton, John

    Hill, Keith

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoey, Kate

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hunter, Andrew

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hutton, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr Brian

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

    Illsley, Eric

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mountford, Kali

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mudie, George

    Jamieson, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Norris, Dan

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Joyce, Eric

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keetch, Paul

    Pond, Chris

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

    Pope, Greg

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kidney, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Purchase, Ken

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rammell, Bill

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lammy, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Lepper, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Levitt, Tom

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Rowlands, Ted

    Linton, Martin

    Roy, Frank

    Lock, David

    Ruane, Chris

    Love, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    1045

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Timms, Stephen

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Todd, Mark

    Sawford, Phil

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Touhig, Don

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Trickett, Jon

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Truswell, Paul

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Watts, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Webb, Steve

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    White, Brian

    Spellar, John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wilson, Brian

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Winnick, David

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wood, Mike

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Woolas, Phil

    Stunell, Andrew

    Worthington, Tony

    Sutclifte, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    NOES

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
    That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 427, Noes 4.

    Division No. 80]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beith, Rt Hon AJ

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Ainger, Nick

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allan, Richard

    Benton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Bercow, John

    Amess, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Berry, Roger

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blackman, Liz

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Blizzard, Bob

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Borrow, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Boswell, Tim

    Ballard, Jackie

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Banks, Tony

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Barron, Kevin

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bayley, Hugh

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Beard, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Breed, Colin

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    1046

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Flight, Howard

    Burden, Richard

    Flint, Caroline

    Burnett, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Burns, Simon

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Butterfill, John

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Fraser, Christopher

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gapes, Mike

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Garnier, Edward

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Casale, Roger

    Gidley, Sandra

    Caton, Martin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Chope, Christopher

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clapham, Michael

    Goggins, Paul

    Clappison, James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Gray, James

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Green, Damian

    Clelland, David

    Greenway, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Coleman, Iain

    Grocott, Bruce

    Collins, Tim

    Grogan, John

    Colman, Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Corbett, Robin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hammond, Philip

    Cousins, Jim

    Hanson, David

    Cran, James

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Crausby, David

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Cummings, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Heald, Oliver

    Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

    Healey, John

    Darvill, Keith

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Davidson, Ian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Dawson, Hilton

    Hill, Keith

    Day, Stephen

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hoey, Kate

    Denham, John

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Dismore, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Doran, Frank

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Drew, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Hutton, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Edwards, Huw

    Illsley, Eric

    Efford, Clive

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Evans, Nigel

    Jamieson, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Fallon, Michael

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    1047

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Joyce, Eric

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moore, Michael

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Keetch, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

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

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Mountford, Kali

    Key, Robert

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Khabra, Piara S

    Mudie, George

    Kidney, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Wrkbride, Miss Julie

    Norman, Archie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Norris, Dan

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Oaten, Mark

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lammy, David

    Olner, Bill

    Lansley, Andrew

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Öpik, Lembit

    Leigh, Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lepper, David

    Page, Richard

    Leslie, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Pearson, Ian

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Pickles, Eric

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Pickthali, Colin

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Pike, Peter L

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pond, Chris

    Lidington, David

    Pope, Greg

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lock, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Love, Andrew

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Luff, Peter

    Prior, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Prosser, Gwyn

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Purchase, Ken

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Rammel, Bill

    Randall, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Raynsford, Nick

    McDonnell, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    McFall, John

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McGrady, Eddie

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Rooney, Terry

    McNulty, Tony

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    MacShane, Denis

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rowlands, Ted

    McWalter, Tony

    Roy, Frank

    McWilliam, John

    Ruane, Chris

    Madel, Sir David

    Ruddoct, Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ruffley, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Maples, John

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Sawford, Phil

    Mates, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Maxton, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Merron, Gillian

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    1048

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Tredinnick, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Trend, Michael

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Trickett, Jon

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Truswell, Paul

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Tyler, Paul

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Tynan, Bill

    Spellar, John

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Spring, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Watts, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Webb, Steve

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wells, Bowen

    Steinberg, Gerry

    White, Brian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Whittingdale, John

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Streeter, Gary

    Willetts, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Syms, Robert

    Wills, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilson, Brian

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wood, Mike

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Woolas, Phil

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Todd, Mark

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Yeo, Tim

    Touhig, Don

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McCrea, Dr William

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 7.

    Division No. 81]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Ballard, Jackie

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Banks, Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Barron, Kevin

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ainsworth, Robert (CoV'try NE)

    Beard, Nigel

    Allan, Richard

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Allen, Graham

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Arness, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Benton, Joe

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bercow, John

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Berry, Roger

    Bailey, Adrian

    Betts, Clive

    Baldry, Tony

    Blackman, Liz

    1049

    Blair,Rt Hon Tony

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Edwards, Huw

    Bunkett, Rt Hon David

    Efford, Clive

    Blunt, Crispin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Borrow, David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Evans, Nigel

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Fallon, Michael

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brazier, Julian

    Ftepatrick, Jim

    Breed, Colin

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Flight, Howard

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Flint, Caroline

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Burnett, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Burns, Simon

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Buttertill, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Fraser, Christopher

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Gale, Roger

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Gardiner, Barry

    (NE Fife)

    Garnier, Edward

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gidley, Sandra

    Casale, Roger

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Caton, Martin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Cawsey, Ian

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clapham, Michael

    Goggins, Paul

    Clappison, James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Gray, James

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Green, Damian

    Clelland, David

    Greenway, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Coleman, Iain

    Grocott, Bruce

    Collins, Tim

    Grogan, John

    Colman, Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Corbett, Robin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hammond, Philip

    Cousins, Jim

    Hanson, David

    Cran, James

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Crausby, David

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Cummings, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Heald, Oliver

    Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

    Healey, John

    Darvill, Keith

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Davidson, Ian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Dawson, Hilton

    Hill, Keith

    Day, Stephen

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hoey, Kate

    Denham, John

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Dismore, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Doran, Frank

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Drew, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    1050

    Hutton, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Maples, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Mates, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jarnieson, David

    Maxton, John

    Jenkins, Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Joyce, Eric

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moore, Michael

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Keetch, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

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

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Mountford, Kali

    Key, Robert

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Khabra, Piara S

    Mudie, George

    Kidney, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Norman, Archie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Norris, Dan

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Oaten, Mark

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lammy, David

    Olner, Bill

    Lansley, Andrew

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Öpik, Lembit

    Leigh, Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lepper, David

    Page, Richard

    Leslie, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Pearson, Ian

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Pickles, Eric

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Pike, Peter L

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pond, Chris

    Lidington, David

    Pope, Greg

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lock, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Love, Andrew

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Luff, Peter

    Prior, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Prosser, Gwyn

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Purchase, Ken

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Rammell, Bill

    Randall, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Raynsford, Nick

    McDonnell, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    McFall, John

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McGrady, Eddie

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Rooney, Terry

    McNulty, Tony

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    MacShane, Denis

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rowlands, Ted

    McWalter, Tony

    Roy, Frank

    McWilliam, John

    Ruane, Chris

    Madel, Sir David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ruffley, David

    1051

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Timms, Stephen

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Todd, Mark

    Sawford, Phil

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Touhig, Don

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Tredinnick, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Trend, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Trickett, Jon

    Shepherd, Richard

    Truswell, Paul

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Turner, Dennis (Wdverh''ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Walter, Robert

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Soarnes, Nicholas

    Watts, David

    Sothworth, Ms Helan

    Webb, Steve

    Spellar, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    White, Brian

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Spring, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    WICKS, Malcolm

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Willetts, David

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Willis, Phil

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wills, Mchael

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilson, Brian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Winnick, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Wood, Mike

    Syms, Robert

    Woolas, Phil

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Worthington, Tony

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hunter, Andrew

    Chope, Christopher

    McCrea, Dr William

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure Rules 2001, which were laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 433, Noes 1.

    Division No. 82]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Ainger, Nick

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Allan, Richard

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Allen, Graham

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Amess, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bailey, Adrian

    1052

    Baldry, Tony

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Ballard, Jackie

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Banks, Tony

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Barron, Kevin

    Darvill, Keith

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beard, Nigel

    Davidson, Ian

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Day, Stephen

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, John

    Bercow, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Berry, Roger

    Doran, Frank

    Betts, Clive

    Dowd, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Drew, David

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Duncan, Alan

    Blizzard, Bob

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Blunt, Crispin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Borrow, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Boswell, Tim

    Efford, Clive

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Evans, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Breed, Colin

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Fallon, Michael

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Frtzpatrick, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burnett, John

    Right, Howard

    Burns, Simon

    Flint, Caroline

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Butterfill, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gale, Roger

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gardiner, Barry

    Caplin, Ivor

    Garnier, Edward

    Casale, Roger

    George, Andrew (St lves)

    Caton, Martin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chope, Christopher

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Clapham, Michael

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clappison, James

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Clelland, David

    Gray, James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Green, Damian

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Greenway, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Collins, Tim

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Colman, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    Connarty, Michael

    Grogan, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hain, Peter

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hammond, Philip

    Cran, James

    Hanson, David

    Crausby, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Cummings, John

    Harris, Dr Evan

    1053

    Harvey, Nick

    Lock, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Luff, Peter

    Healey, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McCrea, Dr William

    Hesford, Stephen

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    McDonnell, John

    Hill, Keith

    McFall, John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hoey, Kate

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McNulty, Tony

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    MacShane, Denis

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    McWilliam, John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Madel, Sir David

    Hutton, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Illsley, Eric

    Maples, John

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mates, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Maxton, John

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Merron, Gillian

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Miller, Andrew

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Joyce, Eric

    Moffatt, Laura

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Moore, Michael

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Keetch, Paul

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

    Morley, Elliot

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Key, Robert

    Mountford, Kali

    Khabra, Piara S

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Kidney, David

    Mudie, George

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mullin, Chris

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Norman, Archie

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Oaten, Mark

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Lammy, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Olner, Bill

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Neill, Martin

    Leigh, Edward

    Öpik, Lembit

    Lepper, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Leslie, Christopher

    Page, Richard

    Letwin, Oliver

    Paice, James

    Levitt, Tom

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Pearson, Ian

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Pickles, Eric

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pike, Peter L

    Lidington, David

    Pond, Chris

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Pope, Greg

    Linton, Martin

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    1054

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Streeter, Gary

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stunell, Andrew

    Prior, David

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Swayne, Desmond

    Purchase, Ken

    Syms, Robert

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Randall, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Timms, Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Todd, Mark

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Touhig, Don

    Rooney, Terry

    Tredinnick, David

    Ross, Emnie (Dundee W)

    Trend, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Trickett, Jon

    Rowlands, Ted

    Truswell, Paul

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruffley, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tyler, Paul

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Tynan, Bill

    Sanders, Adrian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Viggers, Peter

    Sawford, Phil

    Walter, Robert

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Watts, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Webb, Steve

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Wells, Bowen

    Shepherd, Richard

    White, Brian

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Willetts, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Willis, Phil

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Wills, Michael

    Spellar, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Winnick, David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spring, Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wood, Mike

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Woolas, Phil

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Worthington, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Yeo, Tim

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Hunter, Andrew

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations (Naples II)) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 425, Noes 8

    Division No. 83]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clelland, David

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Clifton- Brown, Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allan, Richard

    Coleman, Iain

    Allen, Graham

    Collins, Tim

    Amess, David

    Colman, Tony

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Connary, Michael

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cousins, Jim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cran, James

    Bailey, Adrian

    Crausby, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Cummings, John

    Ballard, Jackie

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Banks, Tony

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Barron, Kevin

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darvill, Keith

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Davidson, Ian

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Day, Stephen

    Benton, Joe

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bercow, John

    Denham, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim

    Berry, Roger

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Betts, Clive

    Doran, Frank

    Blackman, Liz

    Dowd, Jim

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Drew, David

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Blizzard, Bob

    Duncan, Alan

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Blunt, Crispin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Borrow, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Boswell, Tim

    Efford, Clive

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Evans, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Breed, Colin

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Fallon, Michael

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Burden, Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burnett, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burns, Simon

    Flight, Howard

    Burstow, Paul

    Flint, Caroline

    Butterfill, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Gale, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Galloway, George

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gapes, Mike

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gardiner, Barry

    Casale, Roger

    Garnier, Edward

    Caton, Martin

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Chope, Christopher

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clapham, Michael

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Clappison, James

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Godsiff, Roger

    1056

    Goggins, Paul

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Gray, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Green, Damian

    Lammy, David

    Greenway, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Leigh, Edward

    Grocott, Bruce

    Lepper, David

    Grogan, John

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Hain, Peter

    Levitt, Tom

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Hammond, Philip

    Lidington, David

    Hanson, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Linton, Martin

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Lock, David

    Harvey, Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Luff, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Healey, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Macdonald, Calum

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McDonnell, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    McFall, John

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hill, Keith

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hoey, Kate

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    McNulty, Tony

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    MacShane, Denis

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McWalter, Tony

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    McWilliam, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Madel, Sir David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hutton, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Maples, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Mates, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jamieson, David

    Maxton, John

    Jenkins, Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Joyce, Eric

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moore, Michael

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Keetch, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

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

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Mountford, Kali

    Key, Robert

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Khabra, Piara S

    Mudie, George

    Kidney, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Norman, Archie

    1057

    Norrs, Dan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Oaten, Mark

    Roy, Frank

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Ruane, Chris

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Olner, Bill

    Ruffley, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Öpik, Lembit

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Sanders, Adrian

    Page, Richard

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Paice, James

    Sawford, Phil

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Pearson, Ian

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Pickles, Eric

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Pickthall, Colin

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Pike, Peter L

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Pond, Chris

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Pope, Greg

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Prior, David

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Purchase, Ken

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Soames, Nicholas

    Rammell, Bill

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Randall, John

    Spellar, John

    Raynsford, Nick

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Spring, Richard

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Stewart, David (Invernness E)

    Rooney, Terry

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    1058

    Streeter, Gary

    Walter, Robert

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stunell, Andrew

    Watts, David

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Webb, Steve

    Swayne, Desmond

    Wells, Bowen

    Syms, Robert

    White, Brian

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Timms, Stephen

    Todd, Mark

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Touhig, Don

    Willis, Phil

    Tredinnick, David

    Wills, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Wilson, Brian

    Trickett, Jon

    Winnick, David

    Truswell, Paul

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wood, Mike

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Woolas, Phil

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Worthington, Tony

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tyler, Paul

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tynan, Bill

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Viggers, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hunter, Andrew

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    McCrea, Dr William

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Manufacturing (North)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I have been trying to secure this debate for two months, partly because of the recent newspaper headlines about Nissan and the future of Corus, and partly because I am passionate about manufacturing and strongly believe that it is the only sound way to success for our economy,
In our region, manufacturing is bigger than merely Nissan and Corus, important though they are to Wearside and Teesside. The north-east was built on manufacturing. Our existing technical strengths are built on the historic foundations of shipbuilding, iron and steel making, heavy chemicals, mining technology and bridge building, but the world has changed and our region along with it. Change often means an uphill struggle, and we are having such a struggle at the moment. As the commentator William Keegan said in The Observer last Sunday:
Manufacturing in 1999 was a mere 2.2 per cent. above 1995. That is not healthy for a serious economy.
Our region is still heavily dependent on manufacturing, because it makes up a larger part of our economic base than it does in other regions and involves a larger percentage of the labour force than in any other region of the United Kingdom—174,000 people in all, which is a fifth of all people employed in the region—and also because most of our manufacturing firms are in specific sectors with specific skill needs.
What are those sectors? Mechanical engineering employs about 45,000 people. It includes the steel industry, which is centred on Teesside and Hartlepool, and the shipbuilding and offshore yards along the Tyne, Wear and Tees. We have the automotive industry, which, as I said, is more than Nissan—the sector is made up of some 235 firms employing up to 40,000 workers. Nissan is obviously the focus, but it is not generally realised that the north-east has a large automotive products industry selling throughout the UK and the globe.
We also have the chemical industry, which is primarily located in my area of Teesside and employs about 18,000 people, who were once mainly employed by ICI, but who now work for a large number of chemical multinationals, many of them household names such as DuPont, BASF and Dow, which bought into the divested ICI bulk businesses. We also have electronics, which employed 15,000 people in the mid-1990s. Since then, employment has increased, despite the loss of Siemens and Fujitsu. Much of that increase has been in mass production and assembly functions. A number of Pacific rim companies have also located in the north-east. All those sectors have managers and workers with skill, talent and initiative.
258WH
We need to take account of certain factors when we consider long-term plans to improve manufacturing competitiveness. Studies of mechanical engineering show that that area of technology is divided into two broad sub-sectors. One is based on knowledge-intensive, high-technology processes and applications, which feed into global supply chains. That group is characterised by the steel industry and the more advanced engineering companies. The other is based on a large number of smaller, less-advanced employers that undertake fabrication, mechanical engineering and associated installation and plant services. The north is home to both sub-sectors, but the second is the bigger employer.
The biggest threat is to our steel industry, and I speak with passion as I was a British Steel employee before I came to Parliament. We have no clear knowledge of the intentions of Corus, but the omens for both south Wales and Teesside are not good. There has been speculation in the newspapers that as many as 7,000 steel worker redundancies will be announced in the next week. I urge the Minister and the Government to do everything possible to assist in minimising the number of redundancies. They could leave a devastating hole in the economy of Teesside, as well as heaping pain and misery on the individuals affected and their families. It has been estimated that redundancies would also result in a loss of gross domestic product to the area, at a cost of £28,000 per annum for each job lost, plus £8,150 per annum per job lost as a result of loss of tax and payment of benefits. There are also the massive costs of cleaning up and decontaminating such heavily used sites, which have seen nearly a century of steel making.
I recognise that the Government, and certainly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have given us support and help on Teesside when we needed it—when job losses were announced last year—through the setting up of a rapid reaction taskforce that embraces the local authority, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment, and agencies such as the Employment Service and the local training and enterprise council. As a Member of Parliament, I am also involved.
What a contrast that is with the world before 1997, when the previous Government were utterly indifferent as millions of jobs were lost throughout the country—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) laughs.
Mr. Richard Page: I have to laugh because the hon. Member is giving us the propaganda rather than the facts. If he studies manufacturing industry in this country, he will find that from 1993 to 1997 the numbers employed increased, year after year, for the first time in decades. It is only since 1997 that they have started to go down again. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 1980s, his argument may have some validity, but if he is talking about the 1990s, he has got it wrong.
Dr. Kumar: I merely refer the hon. Gentleman to what William Keegan said, which is that the manufacturing sector has gone up by 2.2 per cent. He is a well-respected commentator.
The threats still remain to jobs in manufacturing—in mining, shipbuilding, engineering and car making. Manufacturing is vital to the working of a modern

259WH
economy and must be viewed by the Government as such. It is too vital to become merely the plaything of City institutions and day traders looking for easy profits.
The automotive industry arose on the back of the original Nissan investment. The presence of that world-class employer on our doorstep has meant that suppliers know what quality is required of them. However, the movement of motor manufacturing across European borders, the loss of critical customers such as Ford and Vauxhall and the slimming down of Longbridge and Cowley will mean that competition will be tougher for their former suppliers.
I know from my experience as the chairman of the all-party industry group that the chemical industry is also in a period of rapid change. It is not a sunset industry: it powers material manufacture, backs up the pharmaceuticals industry and is vital to the manufacture of food and drink. Issues such as higher energy costs, less-developed logistics and a fragmented world market with different systems of regulation mean that traditional bulk production is under pressure. Chemical companies also have to face new competition from new facilities in southeast Asia and Latin America, which can draw on a pool of low-cost labour.
The electronics sector is also under intense pressure. The mass-market industries, especially those manufacturing domestic goods, are extremely sensitive to new products, innovation, price and marketing strategies. In order to remain competitive, plants must undertake continual reinvestment, retooling and retraining.
The north-east electronics industry is still a branch of plant operation, which means that most companies have few engineers, technologists, managers and other professionals—people able to develop new ideas and innovation into world-beating products that could be made in the north-east. The market factors with which northern manufacturers now have to cope are increasingly severe. That on its own would be enough, but northern manufacturers have other worries. They are concerned about a growing north-south divide in manufacturing with high-tech sectors increasingly investing in the south of England, and the north being seen as lagging behind when it comes to high-tech investment. Figures from the northern TUC are sobering. They show that the south-east gained 6,000 manufacturing jobs between 1998 and 2000, whereas the north-east lost 1,500 similar jobs over the same period.
How are we in the north-east going to reverse this decline? How much of the solution is in our hands and within our power, and how much is within the power of central Government? I recognise that central and regional government will have to co-operate to get the best deals for our communities and for our local businesses.
I applaud the establishment of the regional development agency, One NorthEast, which is the most integrated approach to industrial reinvigoration that we have seen. I applaud the formation of regional and sub-regional structures to integrate the planning, transportation and development functions essential to greater competitiveness and growth. That has led to a
260WH
world that is much changed since 1997. There are more people in work than ever before. Unlike the previous Government's training schemes, the new deal is more than a revolving door for unemployed people. New public spending measures have pump-primed our schools and our colleges, and have helped universities to produce better-qualified people to meet the needs of industries that are having to compete on a global footing.
However, the scale of the downturn in manufacturing employment is such that other solutions have to be devised with the blessing and backing of central Government. There should be no shame in that. It is not a matter of reversing pledges, but merely of recognising that the world has changed and that we have to adapt policies to meet new circumstances. Above all, we must recognise the changing balance of trade with mainland Europe—the biggest export area of our manufacturing firms.
There is no time in this debate to discuss our entry into the euro. The need to ensure that we have some price comparability in selling finished goods on the European mainland has to be recognised. We must enter into the single currency zone as soon as possible. I fully support the Government's commitment to a referendum, only after the key economic tests have been satisfied. We must also take heed of the doctor's test of the good health on our manufacturing industry. At present, that test will prove that it is suffering from a rapidly worsening attack of economic anaemia.
Other measures are needed. I am aware from reports that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is contemplating a post-election shake-up of the Cabinet structures. One reform that could be instituted quickly is the designation of a Minister for Manufacturing, who could champion manufacturing, just as small businesses, universities and farmers have ministerial champions—a minister whose role should be to ensure that a framework of incentives and rewards is developed to encourage entrepreneurs and to ensure that the technologies developed can be exploited with incentives. That suggestion came from Sir Ken Jackson, the general secretary of my own trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, whose knowledge of manufacturing should not be underestimated. He is someone who should be listened to, and I know that the Prime Minister takes his views on board.
We also need a domestic policy for growth that recognises that manufacturing can be successful only if there is a customer base for its products. The state itself is one of those customers. When we examine the matrix of economic indicators available to us, we should pay attention to the power of the state as an agency that can create growth. That can be done in many ways: by infrastructure projects, such as new road and new mass transit schemes, an example of which is the metro extension to Sunderland; by considering carefully the procurement budgets for individual spending Departments; by speeding up the reclamation of derelict industrial sites that still disfigure too many parts of the north-east; by working with the oil and gas industry to try to speed up the opening of new oil and gas field developments in the North sea and Atlantic shelf: and by helping with a programme of scrapping older, less environmentally friendly North sea platforms at the end of their working life.

261WH
New private sector infrastructure projects could be speeded up by a more targeted use of state aid, and by speeding up the planning system, so that a project deemed to be of national or regional significance could have a quicker planning route. We could even look to climate change as a vehicle for helping manufacturing. Flood defences work often needs the civil engineering skills associated with building North sea structures. We could examine how to create a water grid of pipelines linking the saturated north with the drier south, which would provide a massive fillip for the north-east steel industry.
We must begin to put flesh on the bones of the cluster concept. Clusters are rapidly assuming a new status as a way of encouraging upskilling, investment and a virtuous circle of improvement and partnership. Partnership leads to greater growth, productivity and wealth creation. Our RDA has championed the idea of clusters, which I welcome. Clusters should be encouraged in certain areas to allow the free flow of collaboration between companies engaged in the same area of business and on joint marketing, research and development, blue sky research and training. The establishment of clusters in specific areas, such as chemicals, food and drink and marine technology, is well advanced. Indeed, I attended a debate in Westminster Hall only a few months ago on a chemical cluster for Teesside.
The Government must make an explicit commitment to clusters, especially to the chemical cluster, by providing physical incentives, by the fine tuning of the national and regional grant regime, and by underwriting partnerships between manufacturers and universities. I recognise that the new Learning and Skills Council and the Small Business Service will play an important part in that, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister can give us any information on progress so far.
The north-east has great potential, and the opportunities are limitless. Therefore, I merely say the obvious—that manufacturing is very important for our region.
9.49 am
Mr. Derek Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Mr. Kumar) on securing the debate. The subject of manufacturing industry in the north-east is close to his heart, and he has spoken—both inside and outside this Chamber—passionately and consistently on that matter since he was elected in 1997. My hon. Friend displays considerable courage in doing so, because we would rather not hear critical remarks that need to be made about our Government.
Over the past four years, the Government have made enormous progress in pursuing their macro and micro-policies on manufacturing. The emphasis has been on research and development, innovation and the spin-off from universities acting together as a knowledge base—jobs can be created in university engineering departments and high technology departments—and that is all now beginning to come together. Universities in the north-east are outstanding, and are now acting together far more effectively than in the past. In the next decade, we anticipate even more spin-off into our manufacturing industry.
262WH
Many people say that the north-east does not have the skills to cope with modern developments. That may, sadly, be true in that we still have the poorest educational performance of any English region at all levels. That has been the case for the 30 years that I have been involved in politics, despite the efforts of all Governments to rectify it. Part of the problem is that not enough jobs are available, so there is no incentive for people to acquire skills at the higher educational level. Economic growth and the development of talent must go hand in hand. With mass unemployment, people's skills and employability are all too quickly dissipated. Growth and skills must run in tandem. I congratulate the Government on recognising that and doing something about it.
The north-east is proud of its manufactories, some of which have had to struggle for years against adverse circumstances, and we have some fine examples of global players. My own constituency, for example, includes Black & Decker, Thorn Lighting and Electrolux—all those outstanding companies are within half a mile of each other in Spennymoor ward. Glaxo Smith Kline, as it is now called, employs 1,500 people at Barnard castle—it is a global player.
The north-east has always had a long tail of uncompetitive smaller companies. Our great problem is how best to dissipate best practice from the global players throughout the whole chain. We may take complaints from some of the less efficient and less competitive manufacturers with a pinch of salt—it is always possible to find staggering ways of improving competitiveness. However, when the global players complain, we know that other measures should be taken.
Recently, we have heard complaints about the high value of the pound or the low value of the euro, which led to a 30 per cent. reduction in competitiveness, most of which took place under the previous Administration. Although it may be possible for companies that are already global players to improve their competitiveness by 5, 6 or 7.5 per cent. per annum, it certainly is not possible quickly to improve competitiveness by 30 per cent., especially when the majority of our manufactures go to Europe. Companies who send their manufactures to the United States have done quite well, because the exchange rate has not been a problem, whereas those who have sent most of their manufactures to Europe have experienced enormous problems because of the high value of the pound, and that even includes the global players.
The economic cognoscenti believe that there is very little that can be done about that problem. That is why the Government have preferred not to mention it too often, because the next question they are asked is what they intend to do about it. For some people, the easy answer would be to join the euro. I have been pro-European for 40 years—I was a lonely voice in the Labour party in the early years—but I have always been cautious about the single currency, and remain so. I would love us to join the euro at a rate that we could live with and at which we could prosper. If that were possible, we would do it tomorrow, and I would accept

263WH
everything else in its wake. However, that will be hard to achieve, so we must remain cautious about that whole agenda for the time being.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The trouble with being cautious is that it gives manufacturing industry very little hope that the situation will improve. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister may have been rather less cautious in his conversations with Nissan, and may have wanted to stress to them that there is a prospect of Britain joining the single currency in a reasonably short time?
Mr. Foster: There may have been a window of opportunity immediately after the 1997 election to have a referendum. If we had gone into the euro at that stage, we may have avoided some of the problems that we are discussing this morning. That window was open for only a short time, and as we have lost that opportunity, entering the single currency will be one of most delicate negotiations that any future Government will face.
I am glad that mention was made of Nissan because I am enormously proud of what it has achieved. I was on the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council in the mid 1970s when we reserved the Usworth airport for the big one. The big one was not going to be anything to do with the motor industry—that was the last thing on our minds. We did not want the motor industry to come to Tyne and Wear, but the arrival of Nissan not only created a large number of jobs, both direct and indirect, but tuned the quality of management throughout manufacturing in the north-east.
People in the north-east are ready to embrace the future and are keen to continue the improvements in productivity and quality. However, just as we begin to run the race effectively, we have to run harder to stand on the spot. That always seems to be the problem in the north-east. We have restructured our economy continually throughout the past 30 years, but we have always needed to do more and more to remain on the spot.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems for the whole of the north is the relative absence of investment in high technologies? Is he aware that a number of the universities and businesses in the north-west have come together, as he advocated earlier, and have proposed the Casim project on the Daresbury laboratory site, which is currently being considered by the Department of Trade and Industry? Would he support that project, as he does for similar projects in the north-east?
Mr. Foster: Yes, of course. Bringing together research and development is crucial for the future of our regions. I am enormously keen for information and communication technology companies to come to the north-east, so it is rather depressing that most are going to London and the south-east and to parts of the southwest. Therefore, the north-east is falling further behind in the new economy.
I say kindly to my hon. Friend that although the Government rightly emphasise that the future largely depends on the new economy, the unintended message
264WH
to manufacturing industry in the north-east is that it does not really matter, and that investment will go into ICT. The suggestion is that the future is with information communication technology, as if that had nothing to do with traditional manufacturing. The future for traditional manufacturing lies in the application of all these new technologies to each of their processes, so it is divisive to talk about the new economy as if we could dispense with the old economy.
I associate that view not so much with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with the Treasury—and not necessarily Treasury Ministers. I have been a Treasury watcher for 40 years, and it has always been keen on a strong pound, whatever the consequences to manufacturing industry, and has always believed that manufacturing is old hat—that view reached its peak in the days of Lord Lawson. The belief that manufacturing is of no great consequence to the nation arises from the coalition between senior Treasury officials, the Bank of England and the City, as they see all new investment going in other directions. We in the north-east want our share of ICT design and artistic developments. We want the new rapidly growing industries to come to the north-east. Part of our problem is that we can never get our share of those rapidly growing industries.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesborough, South and Cleveland, East to resist any pressure from the Treasury suggesting that manufacturing industry is of declining importance to the nation, that its effect on our gross domestic product is diminishing and 1h it employment in that industry is reducing. We do not need to be concerned about that. Employment in manufacturing industry is reducing because of its more efficient use of labour.
We could talk about this subject for the next three or four hours, but I shall close my remarks by urging my colleagues at the DTI to resist pressures from the financial authorities that manufacturing does not matter. It does matter. It is crucial, and we cannot prosper without it. No matter how we restructure our economy, manufacturing is important, and we want the Minister to understand that.
10.4 am
Mr. John Cummings: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which was successfully obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). My hon. Friend has a great passion for his constituency and works tirelessly on behalf of the people whom he represents. My area resembles his, in that Easington was founded on coal. Nothing was ever developed on the Usworth site because we required coal miners. One of my predecessors, Mannie Shinwell, once said that as long as there was coal, we could forget about modern engineering plants of any size in the north-east. Mrs. Thatcher put paid to all that. An area that once had 14 coal mines no longer has any. The region has suffered a creeping paralysis over a period of about 35 years. Fortunately, the corner has been turned and that paralysis is now on hold.
There are lessons to be learned from the past, one of which is that the great strength of our area—mining and heavy engineering—was also our great weakness.

265WH
Virtually with a stroke of a pen, 9,000 coal mining jobs were lost overnight. Coal mines will not come back and we must look to the future. That is being achieved through superb partnerships between industry, district councils, county councils, One NorthEast and the Government office for the north east, which have achieved a great deal and which are providing the necessary infrastructure in my constituency to attract future inward investors. Existing industrialists—such as Caterpillar, NSK Ball Bearings and the GT group, under the dynamic leadership of Geoff Turnbull—have given a practical expression of their faith in the area by remaining in it. They rely on the strengths of a work force who are willing to learn, re-skill, adapt and travel. My thanks go to all the industrialists in the area who have remained, through thick and thin—and there have been some very difficult times.
To attract manufacturing to the area, we need to have something on offer. That has been accomplished with the establishment of enterprise zones at Fox Cover and Dawdon, the new development on Dalton Flatts of a £37 million retail park, the reclamation of the Hawthorn mine and the new Glebe centre in Murton, which was opened on Friday by the Prime Minister. All the pieces of the jigsaw have finally been put together. It is a ringing example of what can be achieved for coalfield areas through partnership and Government initiatives.
However, while much has been accomplished, we find ourselves at a standstill. The textile industry is moving into Slovakia. NSK, which is a superb, model employer, now has a plant in Poland. The shipbuilding industry, which lies to the north of Easington, finds itself disadvantaged because hidden subsidies have allegedly been granted to foreign shipyards. In Italy, for example, shipyards are owned by municipalities, which means free rent for shipbuilding and repair.
I am not sure whether the civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry are as assiduous as they should be in watching developments in Europe. They may wish to apply themselves to the situation in France, for example. Why do we never get French ships for repair in Britain? Why do Italians constantly undercut us? There is more to the situation than meets the eye. The DTI should follow that issue in some depth, to discover whether we are being deliberately disadvantaged.
If shipbuilding is not already in crisis, it shortly will be. The problem lies with the work force, whose average age is between 50 and 55. They are looking towards retirement. Where will we find the skills base to provide the work force, should we be successful in once again embarking on shipbuilding and continuing ship repair?
To attract industrialists and manufacturers into an area, money must be expended in rather different directions than the provision of an infrastructure and an enterprise zone. We need more money in my area to tackle deprivation. It has been recognised by the Government as the area of the greatest deprivation in the country. I do not want to talk the area down; I have never done that. I want to talk it up. But the areas of deprivation cannot be ignored. We must ultimately attract industrialists to the area. We need more than the brand new and exciting business parks such as Peterlee and Bracken hill, where several thousand jobs have been relocated into the call centre industry. There is an ideal opportunity for high-tech industry to move into the
266WH
exciting new units adjacent to the A19. However, more money must be expended in the surrounding colliery villages, with their run-down and dilapidated housing.
We must increase funding for our schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) mentioned the low standards of education. There are also low standards of health. The Government have recognised that, but we are still waiting for further funds to flow into the area. How on earth is it that gap funding is to be removed at perhaps the most critical time in the north-east, in the middle of the largest regeneration project? It beggars belief. Have civil servants and Ministers fought tenaciously enough to retain gap funding?
My basic message is that five years ago there was a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness in the area. We were still reeling from the loss of more than 9,000 jobs. Well, we have virtually pulled ourselves together, but in order to help ourselves, we must receive help from the Government. It should be looked upon not as a handout, but as an investment for the future—a true, gilt-edged, solid investment. Those are the messages that I want the Minister to take back to the Department and his officials. All is not lost. I am not painting a rosy picture. An immense amount has been achieved over the last three years, but much more is to be achieved, provided the Government direct the correct stimulus and resources into the area.
10.14 am
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that we are having this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on introducing it so thoroughly and covering so many topics. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) made a heartfelt plea, and I echo much of what he said as, like him, I represent an area that had many coal mines—it still has one—and it shares some of the same problems. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) also made some interesting points. As one would expect, Labour Members, although constructively supporting the Government, wish to draw attention to what needs to be done to help our region.
There are advantages for manufacturing industry in the region and scope for further development. There is space for sites, and it is an attractive area in which to live. We have good labour relations and low labour costs—that is the other side of the low-wages coin—and low housing costs. There are abundant water supplies. As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, there are numerous universities, most of which have a long tradition of working closely with manufacturing industry. Some of the universities were founded on their association with manufacturing industry.
However, there are some serious weaknesses, or the figures would not appear so alarming. The gross domestic product per head is 15 per cent. below the United Kingdom mean; the density of businesses by population is 40 per cent. below the UK mean; new VAT registrations by population are 50 per cent. below the UK figure; employment in high-tech business is 10 per cent. below the UK figure; the business spend on research and development by regional GDP is 33 per cent. below that in the UK; average earnings for

267WH
full-time employees are 11 per cent. below the UK mean; and the proportion of graduates in the work force is 32 per cent. below the UK mean.
Those are worrying figures. Admittedly, they are 1997 statistics, but the Government do not claim that there has been a substantial change in the interim, and yet manufacturing is crucial to the north-east. It provides 21.3 per cent. of employment in the region, compared with 16 per cent. in the country as a whole. Despite the decline, it is still a much larger element in the jobs of our region than in those in other parts of the country. It includes major international companies, such as Proctor and Gamble, Nissan and Alcan, and smaller specialised exporters, such as the House of Hardy in my constituency, which exports the highest quality fishing tackle all over the world.
However, only two of the top 10 manufacturers who provide 10 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in the region have their headquarters in the area, and the threat of losing those companies whose headquarters are elsewhere is pretty frightening. My constituency lost Pringles, the knitwear manufacturer, and Polychrome—both companies with headquarters outside the region that decided to move their manufacturing activities elsewhere.
The small and medium-size business sector is most important, as the Government acknowledge. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland expressed his anxiety about the availability of skills, resources, and expertise to sharpen competitiveness. A great many people have achieved an enormous amount in our smaller businesses by innovation and sheer hard work, but they often need help in keeping up with the increase in competitiveness that is necessary even to cope with the exchange rate problem. Business organisations have drawn my attention to that problem.
A very good organisation called Manufacturing Challenge, which brings together large and small business to explore relevant issues, was started in the region by my constituent Mr. Karl Watkin. It has drawn attention to the shortage of resources and expertise to promote competitiveness in the SME sector.
I quote the business view of major international companies:
The decision makers, whether in America, Europe, Asia or London can look at a map and see that we are on the peripheral fringes of Europe. They can see that we are not connected to the UK motorway network, unlike nearly everywhere in western Europe.
They refer to the "blue lines on the atlas" position; manufacturers can see that the lines showing the motorways do not extend into our region. They continue:
They see that there are no regular business connections except to London, Brussels and Amsterdam by air, and that the cost of transporting freight is also high.
The retention of international businesses is crucial to the regional economy. Infrastructure is of fundamental importance to the continuance of manufacturing industry in our region, and action is needed. If the region had more power to decide how resources are used, it would help us to tackle those infrastructure problems. We are strongly committed to a regional assembly, and
268WH
we want the Government to keep moving on that. We do not want just a talking shop but a body, like the Scottish Parliament, that has the capacity to make resource decisions within the region in the light of the needs of regional industry and business. That is why fairer funding is important.
It is no accident that several local authorities in the region are among those worst hit by the standard spending assessment system with regard to educational spending. It is increasingly recognised that the absence of a mechanism like the Barnett formula, which has helped Scotland so much, means that the region does not have the public expenditure per head to improve infrastructure to the same level as in similar parts of Scotland with similar problems.
The exchange rate problem, and the uncertainty over Britain's future position on the euro, is of crucial importance to manufacturing industry in its exports to Europe. Our region depends on the manufacturing industry, so it is disproportionately affected. International companies, such as Corus and, crucially, Nissan, are affected by those problems and that uncertainty. Will the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland tell me what he thinks that the Prime Minister really said to Nissan—in addition to the discussion of regional aid—about Britain's future in the euro? Every car that Nissan exports to Europe from Sunderland is exported at a loss, because of the exchange rate problem and the sheer unpredictability of the exchange rate—not because the company is not an efficient producer. In fact, the company has set such a good example that it has brought great efficiency throughout the region.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister should have told Nissan that we would lock on to the euro at the prevailing exchange rates?
Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Prime Minister did not say that. I suspect that he told Nissan that, if he were reelected as Prime Minister, there would be an early referendum, and that the Government would try to reach the position in which we could join.
Given that discounting takes place in international markets, one of the factors at play is whether people believe that Britain is likely to join the euro. A commitment not to join the euro for the next five years—the duration of the next Parliament—would not help to get our currency closer in exchange rate terms or give industry the confidence to continue to develop manufacturing in our region. Nevertheless, that is the position taken by the Conservative party, although it is is a little cagier about the matter in the region. I received a leaflet through my door that said that the Conservative party's position, unlike that of the Liberal Democrats, was that we should join the euro only when it was in Britain's interests to do so. I entirely agree with that—I sign up to that statement. However, if we can get to an exchange rate level that is sustainable for us in the euro, it will certainly be in Britain's interests to join, and very much against them to rule out membership, as the Conservative party has done.
The Conservative party may say that we should never join the euro out of principle, but it must realise what a big sacrifice our region would have to make. Anyone

269WH
who has the interests of the region's industry at heart must realise how important it is, and that we should attempt to reach a point at which Britain can enter the euro zone so as to give our industry a chance to compete and ensure that international industry remains within our region.
Smaller and medium-sized enterprises depend to a larger extent than the biggest businesses on support systems. Business men have sometimes expressed their dissatisfaction to me about the support systems for smaller business. Between 1997 and 1999, approximately £80 million—one third of the region's total allocation of European structural funds—was directed towards the business support community to provide innovation and technology services. In addition, the training and enterprise councils and business links, co-funded by European regional development fund cash, spent a further £4.5 million. Some £100 million has been spent on publicly funded innovation and technology support. That is a lot of money, so it is perhaps surprising that there has been so much criticism about the outcome.
The figures suggest that that funding is not achieving the desired results. When I ask why, business men tell me that too many programmes and projects have focused on the transmission of technology rather than preparing the ground for its reception and absorption. Too much emphasis has been placed on inward investment from other countries and external businesses, with little attention paid to the growth and retention of the existing stock of businesses. It is largely left to service providers to determine the detail of what services are needed by industry.
The perception in business is that the cash is used to look after the providers, not the people whom they are supposed to be supporting—that is, those in business. The providers are not driven by the needs of business. That is the view of many people who want to use the support facilities. Business representatives often express that point of view forcefully to me and to the other Members who represent Northumberland constituencies.
Clearly, the debate has revealed that much should be done to strengthen manufacturing industry in the north—a region that depends on it. The Government must recognise the vital significance of manufacturing—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East suggested that there should be a Minister with responsibility for manufacturing, which is an idea that is worth exploring. The Government must give the regions more power to make decisions that can benefit manufacturing industry and close the infrastructure gap through fairer funding. If we are to get a skilled and adaptable labour force, they must also tackle the inequalities in education. They must listen to what business representatives say about the support mechanisms for business and respond to those views and be clear about Britain's need to enter the euro as soon as we can get terms and an exchange rate that makes it right and sustainable to do so—they should take action to achieve that outcome.
10.26 am
Mr. Richard Page: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar)
270WH
on initiating this debate—the more the merrier, because in many ways this debate adds to one in this Chamber two weeks ago on the same subject. It does no harm for us to hammer home the message that manufacturing matters, and I shall develop that theme.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East says, and I know of his enthusiasm and support for manufacturing. He has been a member of the all-party group on the chemical industry throughout the years that he has been a Member of Parliament.
This debate presages the one that will take place this afternoon in the main Chamber. I do not know whether the Minister will be replying for the Government this afternoon. If he is, he will have two speeches for the price of one. If not, he can hand it to his colleague who is winding up this afternoon's debate.
I will delicately twit the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. I will not call it a diatribe, but he gave us a mantra about the declining numbers employed in manufacturing industry, and said that it was all the fault of the Conservative party. I freely admit that in the 1980s the number of people employed in manufacturing fell dramatically. On the other hand, the restructuring of so many of our nationalised industries—
Mr. Derek Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: After I finish my set piece I will welcome whatever the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
Nationalised industries were being run under the lunchtime directive—politicians thought that they could run businesses better than those who had spent a lifetime doing so. I am surprised that there was not an even greater shake-up.
Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the early 1980s, during what was dubbed the deepest recession since the war, employment did not merely fall—we lost a third of all manufacturing jobs in the north-east? In the 1990s, when we were beginning to recover, we entered the longest recession since the war and lost a further tranche. Numbers did not merely go down under the Tories, they fell dramatically.
Mr. Page: I said that in the 1980s numbers went down dramatically. It is amazing that they did not go down more. To refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory, at the start of the 1980s, the nationalised industries in the sector were costing the taxpayer £50 million every week. After the restructuring, that sector was making contributions of £50 million a week in company and corporation tax, which was a huge turnaround and a basis on which to grow, work and develop. From 1993 to 1997, the numbers went up.
Dr. Kumar: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservative Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, visited the north-east and unemployment was mentioned, she said that people were moaning minnies? Does he agree with her that we were moaning minnies asking for jobs?
Mr. Page: Any Conservative Member of Parliament who says anything derogatory about a previous

271WH
Conservative Prime Minister or Government treads dangerously. People always tend to ask for handouts rather than practical recovery programmes. I shall say no more.
In the United Kingdom today, we must look to the future, not over our shoulders. I am remarkably grateful to the Labour party. If inflation had not been at 26 per cent. in 1976—stagflation—with the whole country going to pieces and regarded as the sick man of Europe, I should not have been successful in a by-election in Workington, which is not exactly the home territory of the Conservative party. That shows the disillusionment that existed. Let us put all that behind us and see how to progress in future.
The present Government have been in power for nearly four years and they had 17 years in opposition to prepare for office, yet we have a serious problem of job losses in manufacturing. If necessary, I can cite the various figures that have been produced by the TUC. Mr. Edmonds said that he thought that 96,000 manufacturing jobs were lost last year. John Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, reckons that the losses this year will be in the region of 10,000 each month. I cannot see anything happening to reverse that. The Government seem almost paralysed—fixed into some jelly from which they cannot break out to develop a positive programme to move manufacturing forward.
Talk of a north-south divide is growing daily, as the facts are emerging. Total unemployment—not merely in manufacturing—in the north-west has increased for the past four months. All Confederation of British Industry surveys show a loss of confidence in industry in the northern regions.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said about critical masses. If there is no critical mass in a sector, the consequences down the line for small businesses are serious. He said that about 235 firms in the north depended on the car industry. Which Government were responsible for introducing the Nissans and Toyotas into the north, to provide the critical mass—the cluster—and thus to provide jobs? The right hon. Gentleman made a remark about a previous Prime Minister, but she was one of the drivers for a practical solution to overcome the problems in manufacturing in the north-east. Like all right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, I want the critical mass and the clusters to work and to be successful.
Of course, critical mass can go the wrong way. If it gets too small, the problems are greater. It is a virtuous circle if it goes one way, and a disaster if it goes the other. One worry about Corus and our steel industry arises in the light of the actions of Ford and Vauxhall. Let us hope and pray that Nissan decides to stay in the country. Our steel consumption has decreased by about 10 per cent. in the past few years—an example of the downward spiral mentioned earlier. More steel is being used, but it is being imported from abroad in manufactured items. Once in a downward spiral, more jobs will be lost in the steel industry.
272WH
I regret that every report that I see adds another 500 or 1,000 to the number of steel workers who may lose their jobs. Before Christmas, there was talk of around 4,000. The last figure that I saw was over 6,000. Let us pray that the figure will be lower.
Mr. Cousins: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not underestimate the power of prayer, although I do not think that working politicians are necessarily the best people to refer to that. With regard to Nissan, does he think that the Government aid package, which has now been approved by the European Commission as consistent with its rules, is enough, not enough or too much?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman puts the question in the manner of the old shaving advertisement, "Is there too much foam on my mouth, or is it just right?"
Mr. Cousins: An analogy with shaving is not really appropriate in my case.
Mr. Page: No, it is not. I was pleased that the aid package was processed, pushed and developed by the DTI much more effectively and efficiently than the Rover package. I am glad that it is in place and I hope that it will encourage the Nissan management to make that decision. Of course, we all know about the ownership of Nissan and where it may go. The aid package is a sign of the importance that the country attaches to retaining Nissan and that critical mass.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the price differential on every product that goes abroad. We know that about 7:5 per cent. of Nissan vehicles are exported and that the company has a turnover of about £1.2 billion. Nissan is losing about 20 per cent. on every vehicle because of the exchange rate. Therefore, no sum of money will be big enough to enable it to trade against the euro at the present rate. The package is an expression of support and confidence. Let us hope that we can run our economy with a greater and more comfortable relationship with the euro. I will return to that subject if time permits.
I agree with much that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said. He made an interesting contribution, and he is a living example of the old political adage that if one has political views and stands still long enough, the wheel will turn and eventually one will be in the mainstream thinking of one's party. There he is, right in the forefront today.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on education. There is a story about a schoolteacher who took a class round a factory shop floor. When they got into the coach to go home, he turned to them and said "There, if you do not pass your exams, that is where you will end up working " That shows a mental attitude that I find extremely worrying—and I went to school, passed all my exams, got the standard 3 'A' levels, but decided not to go to university. I took an industrial apprenticeship and did four years as an indentured, manufacturing apprentice, so I know the importance of manufacturing. That lesson has remained with me all my life. Therefore, I am a firm and committed supporter of the importance of manufacturing to this country.

273WH
Hon. Members may find this difficult to grasp, but I welcomed some of the Government announcements this morning. An election is coming and it is not fashionable to agree with anything that is being announced by another party, but I agreed with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the establishment of school courses—leading to qualifications—on manufacturing and industry. That would be a valuable lesson for school children on the importance of manufacturing, rather than the more esoteric and theoretical subjects.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East about having a Minister for Manufacturing—I thought that that was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for his right hon. Friend's removal and replacement by a Minister who will do the job properly, then we are as one, but I would say no to someone doing that job in addition to the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) mentioned the importance of education. He spoke about the mining industry and the necessity for change. His message is that we are not clockwork mice, who are wound up with one education or training and set loose, but when that spring winds down we do nothing else. Today, we have to be able to retrain several times because of our career structures and the fact that technology moves on—the ability to make wagon wheels today may be superfluous tomorrow.
The hon. Gentlemen briefly and quietly touched on a disaster area that is almost regarded as a secret—the textile industry. For the past few years, we have been losing thousands of jobs every year in that industry. The figure is now well over 100,000 and has been exacerbated by the decision of Marks and Spencer to start sourcing abroad. That brings me back—a slight variation on a theme—to the importance of clusters and critical masses of sources on which all small businesses can run.
As I said in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago, I find the Government guilty on manufacturing—not of persecuting the sector directly, but of indifference and of abandoning it. Three or four hammer blows are hurting manufacturing. The first is the climate change levy, which is going to hit the sector hard. I will not ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, who instigated this debate, to comment on that subject because I know his views only too well. When the Conservative party sweeps to power in a few weeks at the next election, we will abandon that levy. We will take that burden from manufacturing to give it a chance to grow.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the price differential between the pound and the euro, and how it feeds through and hurts our industry. Frankly, while the fiscal policy of our Chancellor of the Exchequer is to spend more money than we are earning, I cannot see how the Monetary Policy Committee can do anything but keep interest rates higher than they need to be. As a result, we cannot get anywhere near parity with the euro to take the burdens and pressures off our manufacturers, who are trying to sell their products but suffer from the huge differential due to the exchange rate.
The Government came to power saying that they would do much to remove the pressure and pain of regulation, yet over the years we have had record
274WH
numbers of statutory instruments. Regulations pile up year on year. In 1999, we broke the record with 3,700 plus, and I am told that last year we went through even that barrier.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East on introducing this debate on manufacturing. It does matter, and we must keep on raising the issue until the burdens are removed and our manufacturers are given the proverbial level playing field on which to compete.
10.45 am
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I, too, apply for membership of the appreciation society for my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of his constituents and the chemical and steel industries. This has been an important and excellent debate. There will probably be more blood and thunder this afternoon, but thoughtful contributions have been made in this debate, and the tone set by my hon. Friend in his opening speech will generate a lot more light, if not as much heat, in the debate generally.
I am pleased that hon. Members who represent the north-east are present, reflecting the importance of the issue in that region. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan)—whose constituency could be described as being in the north, rather than the north-east—have also been present. In the short time available, I shall do my best to respond to individual contributions.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was right. On 10 January we had a debate in this Chamber on the steel industry. This is a wider debate, but as I said in the previous debate on the Government's behalf, manufacturing matters. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are right to say that manufacturers want to hear that message continually from Government. I do not think that we can say it often enough. This debate helps to reinforce the fact that manufacturing is a key part of the economy. It makes up about one fifth of our national income and directly employs about 4 million people.
The Foresight manufacturing report was commissioned and funded by the Department of Trade and Industry to look at manufacturing in 20 years' time. It was published last month and concluded that manufacturing would remain of major importance to the United Kingdom. The report also acknowledges that much remains to be done to secure the UK's position in what will be a European manufacturing competition, but that the UK can succeed.
Hon. Members have raised many crucial issues that we need to address. I am not here to say that the Government have done everything that we need to do on manufacturing in the last three and a half years, and everything is hunky-dory. There are problems that need to be addressed, but I have serious disagreements with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, which I shall deal with in a moment.
This is a period of major business change and restructuring. All sectors must adapt, and UK manufacturers have a crucial role to play in the

275WH
knowledge-driven economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) emphasised the point that this country does not have two types of economy: the new economy and the old, metal-bashing economy. We in government talk all the time about the knowledge-driven economy. I organised a conference on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last February to make that point. It is a matter of harnessing new developments and technologies to traditional industries such as steel, chemicals and the automotive industry. Anyone who walks round a steel plant can see that the knowledge-driven economy is as much about steel as it is about any other industry. We must support manufacturing by providing a stable macro-economic framework.
There has been a lot of talk this morning about the contribution of trade unions. In my time as a Minister with responsibility for an industry with which I had not traditionally been involved, I have been constantly impressed by the constructive approach of trade unions—particularly the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and the Transport and General Workers Union—in every sector of manufacturing.
What is the business world saying? In its December report on manufacturing, the Confederation of British Industry said:
The macro-economic policies pursued by the Government have succeeded in delivering a stable and favourable economic environment.
That is the prime responsibility of any Government. We also need to support manufacturing by investing in education and skills, investing in Britain's knowledge base, ensuring a decent infrastructure, and helping business to boost productivity and secure effective competition. We need to support business by creating a culture in which enterprise can flourish. All those points have been touched on by hon. Members in this debate.
The manufacturing sector has faced—and is still facing—serious challenges. Some parts of the sector are in the middle of a period of great uncertainty, primarily as a consequence of the march of globalisation. Many sectors of manufacturing are undergoing major restructuring. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the steel, automotive and textile industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East is unfortunately only too well aware of the massive problems facing the steel industry—which are of particular concern at this time. That issue was discussed in detail a few weeks ago. The Government were deeply concerned about the redundancies announced by Corus last year, but we are playing our part in helping those workers affected. We await further announcements from Corus, following their statement on 5 December, but I can assure hon. Members that DTI Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales have, almost daily, met representatives from Corus at every level to establish whether the Government can help the situation, and ensure a constructive outcome to the current review.
Some companies in the automotive sector have experienced serious problems in the past few months. The most prominent company mentioned in the debate
276WH
was Nissan, which is central to the north-east, and the most productive car plant in Europe. We wait in the hope that the plant will receive the go-ahead to produce the next generation Micra. I know that it has been well publicised, especially in the north-east, that the Government have offered up to £40 million of regional selective assistance. I am pleased that the European Union, having carefully considered the terms of the offer, has given it the go-ahead. It is now a matter for the Nissan board, and we await their decision, which I think is imminent.
It is beyond question that the numbers employed in manufacturing have fallen in this country, but there has been a similar decline in all other G7 countries. We estimate that, since 1997, 250,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. By comparison, under the previous Administration, from 1979 to 1997 the figure was 150,000 jobs lost each year in manufacturing. That was not decimation—decimation is one in 10. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, that was far worse than decimation.
Overall unemployment is falling in all parts of the country. Indeed, the most recent figures confirm that not only is unemployment falling nationally, it is falling noticeably in the north-east. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire mentioned the north-west. I do not have the figures available—I doubt the accuracy of his figures—but we will look into the point that he raised. In the north-east, the number of unemployed is dropping, and the number in employment is rising. According to the figures, for the first time, the north-east is closing the earnings gap and the gap in employment prospects with the rest of the country.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an important announcement yesterday on the regional innovation fund. That fund plays a small part in helping the process of restructuring. Regions undergoing manufacturing restructuring will particularly benefit from the new fund. Previously, it was calculated on a flat rate across the country, but it is now being calculated so as to put more resources into areas such as the northeast and my own region of Yorkshire and Humberside.
It is impossible to talk about manufacturing without making reference to the strength of the economy. We recognise the problem that the weak euro causes some exporters, but things have picked up recently as the euro has strengthened against the pound. This is a genuine issue of debate between us and the Liberal Democrats, although not the Conservatives. Many companies, such as Nissan and Toyota are keen to know that the options are being kept open for membership of the single currency.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire represents a party that would close those options and see significant investment in this country disappear overnight. We believe that the best contribution that the Government can make is to secure long-term economic stability based on low inflation and sound finances. We have had a growth record of 2.7 per cent. since the election compared with only 2 per cent. between 1979 and 1997. Under the previous Government, we had the worst record on economic growth of any member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development since the second world war.

277WH
The period 1999–2000 was outstanding for attracting inward investment. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the problems that overseas countries face when they look at a map of the UK. We are beating the world on inward investment. We attracted 757 inward investment projects in 1999–2000, 40 per cent. of which were in the manufacturing sector and they created 52,700 new jobs.
Those are the points that I need to make on behalf of the Government about the macro-economic climate. I turn now to the individual problems and points raised in the debate. I shall return to the chemicals sector if I have a few minutes at the end. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East warned a Minister for Manufacturing. I could describe myself as that, but the Foresight report proposed something slightly different. It suggested:
A Chief Manufacturing Adviser should be appointed from industry for a limited period to catalyse the necessary culture change across the government and to provide a focus for manufacturing issues within the DTI.
The Government are considering that proposal, but we have already set up the ministerial group on manufacturing, and its first meeting is due shortly. It was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will involve Ministers from every Department, including the Treasury and the devolved Administrations. That development may meet my hon. Friend's request.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, with the benefit of his wide and long experience, was right to stress the point about the new economy and the old economy and the need to invest in research and development, innovation, skills and training and the infrastructure. I entirely agree with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington made some interesting points about the background of areas such as the north-east. I know from my own experience in the fishing industry in Hull how that affects education in the city. When large numbers of jobs were available for which no qualifications were necessary, the whole education system tended to be of secondary importance. That must now be built up. A lot more work is needed in the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside. My hon. Friend also mentioned the textile industry, and made a specific point about shipbuilding, ship repair and hidden subsidies. We are considering those issues closely. I remind hon. Members that, for the first time in the history of this maritime nation, we have brought the industry, the unions and the Government together in the shipbuilding forum, which is doing much good work.
I had much to say about chemicals, which was a specific problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East raised, and about the clusters initiative, which is being taken forward. Perhaps I can talk to him outside the Chamber on that. I congratulate him on instigating an important, intelligent and constructive debate. Over the coming weeks and months, the Government will consider carefully the points that he raised, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members.

Complementary Medicine
11.0 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: I regard it as a great honour to be able to introduce this debate on the issues surrounding complementary and alternative medicine, based on the findings of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's recent report.
When I last addressed the subject, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said that he admired the persistence and imagination with which I raised the issue at every turn; a compliment for which I was very grateful. I have been involved in the field of complementary and alternative medicine since my election in 1987, so it should be no surprise that I am again raising the issue.
If we were in Beijing or Hong Kong, we would have much to celebrate, as it is the Chinese new year today. Many across the world would say that this is a most auspicious day to debate this House of Lords report, paper no. 123. Soon after my election, I wrote a paper, as treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, in which I argued that complementary and alternative medicine should be integrated into mainstream health care. At the time, that was thought to be a somewhat revolutionary approach.
Over the intervening years, such medicine has grown in people's estimation. The demand for it has increased dramatically in the United Kingdom; one in five people now use complementary and alternative medicine and the budget for treatments is approximately £350 million per annum.
Perhaps it is not so surprising that, recently, 160 Members of Parliament signed early-day motion 3 in my name, which broadly supported the findings of the Select Committee. When I was collecting the signatures, approximately a third of all colleagues said to me that they had direct experience of complementary and alternative medicine.
Therapies such as osteopathy and chiropractic, which were once treated with disdain by the orthodox medical profession, are now regulated by Acts of Parliament and considered almost mainstream by the orthodox profession.
Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Members signed the early-day motion because it urged the House to look at the House of Lords report, which is quite specific about some of the values—and, indeed, some of the non-proven aspects about alternative medicine? The hon. Gentleman must be very careful not to attribute motives to people supporting the motion. Members of Parliament signed to support the House of Lords report, and not necessarily the hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. Tredinnick: I did say that the motion was broadly supportive of the report, and I did not go as far as to say that those who signed supported my views. The motion urged the Government to take notice of the report and it was supported across the House. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will expand on that later if he so desires.

279WH
Last June, the Under-Secretary of State for Health said in Committee:
Services that were considered outlandish several years ago are now almost considered to be part of conventional health care.— [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 June 2000; c. 81.]
We should view the report in that context. Many disciplines hitherto not considered to be part of medicine at all have moved through the spectrum of complementary medicine and are now firmly integrated into the health service.
As the longstanding treasurer of the all-party group on complementary and alternative medicine, I support the findings of the Select Committee and I congratulate their Lordships on having worked so long and hard to produce this report. It marks the defining moment in the use of complementary health care in this country.
The report was commissioned largely on account of the huge increase in the use of complementary and alternative medicine not just in Britain but across the developed world. As the report states, it
raises significant issues in public health policy
such as whether regulations to protect the public are in place, how the evidence base has been accumulated and research conducted and whether the information sources on the subject and practitioners' training are adequate. The report also deals with the prospects for this form of medicine in the context of NHS provision of treatments.
The report makes five key recommendations, on: regulation; professional training and education; research; the information required by the public; and the delivery of complementary medicine in the national health service. The key objective of the Government, following the publication of the report, should be further integration of complementary and alternative medicine into the NHS.
The report provides a logical, safe and sensible way forward. Paragraph 4.37 says:
If a therapy… does gain sufficient evidence to support its efficacy, then the NHS and the medical profession should ensure that the public have access to it and its potential benefits.
The report divides the therapies broadly viewed as complementary and alternative medicine into four groupings—groups 1, 2, 3a and 3b. We should examine each group, which attracted specific recommendations, in turn.
The first group is the so-called big five, which are already and increasingly provided on the national health service. These five—acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy and osteopathy—are professionally organised disciplines with their own diagnostic approach and scientific evidence of effectiveness. Osteopathy and chiropractic are now regulated by Acts of Parliament and I was a member of the Committees—in previous Parliaments—that scrutinised the Bills concerned. Homeopathic doctors are regulated as doctors.
The report stated that regulation by statute might be appropriate for therapies such as acupuncture and herbal medicine and for the non-doctor homeopaths in the future. I would not disagree. For both, pre-existing voluntary regulation is in place and there is a credible
280WH
evidence base. Following the inquiry, the Government should take action to make the big five widely available on the NHS to circumvent the patchy distribution of services, for which there can be no excuse.
The second group are, as the report puts it, the therapies most often used to complement conventional medicine. Some are already provided on the NHS, but more work is needed on regulatory structures and to increase confidence and provision. They are: the Alexander technique; aromatherapy; Bach flower remedies; bodywork therapies; counselling for stress; healing; hypnotherapy; maharishi ayurvedic medicine; meditation; nutritional medicine; reflexology; shiatsu; and yoga.
The challenge for the Government with regard to the second group is to determine regulatory structures and the proof of efficacy necessary for further integration in the health service.
I turn to the third group, which, as I have said, is really two groups. The report says:
While the question of efficacy was not included in our initial terms of reference, in the absence of a credible evidence base it is our opinion that the therapies listed in our Group 3 cannot be supported unless and until convincing research evidence of efficacy,

—I would like colleagues to bear that last phrase in mind—
based upon the results of well designed trials can be produced. Such evidence must be capable of showing that the effects of any therapeutic discipline are superior to those of the placebo effect. It is our view that for those therapies in our Group 3, no such evidence base exists at present.
That is where I part company with their Lordships. Despite the length of the inquiry, perhaps it would have been better if they had waited until after Christmas and possibly given a little further consideration to those therapies listed in group 3. Most of those listed in group 3 should either be in groups 1 or 2. The group 3 listing of alternative disciplines, which offer diagnostic information as well as treatment but for which the Committee did not find convincing evidence of efficacy, include: Chinese herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and ayurvedic medicine. That is hard to understand. I have been dealing with the Chinese medical institute and register in London, which is closely linked with Peking university and runs postgraduate courses for western medical doctors in collaboration with Peking university on Chinese medicine pharmacology. In fact, I will be speaking at the presentation of diplomas for doctors at the Chinese medical institute and register on 3 February.
Western doctors learn Chinese medicine and go on to treat using Chinese medicines. There is one such doctor in my constituency and I have met others practising in London. I cannot understand how it can be said that the evidence is not available. Professor Mei, the chairman of the Chinese medical institute and register, is trying to explain to the Medicines Control Agency how the safety mechanisms of Chinese medicine work. There is a fundamental problem of misunderstanding the classification of group 3. I suggest to the Minister that the evidence base exists, but that an interface with the western regulatory structure is required.
Another organisation in London, the Asante academy of Chinese medicine, is the first Chinese academy to be affiliated to a university in the U.K.—

281WH
Middlesex university. The opening of the affiliated teaching and research centre, which I intend to attend, will be on 31 January. The evidence base is there, but it has not been understood. I have used traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture on several occasions. Certainly, there are strong structures in place, including Peking university and now at Middlesex university, and we need to investigate how they can be extended into other groupings.
I referred to ayurvedic medicine and that is also in group 3a, despite the fact that maharishi ayurvedic is in group 2. Again, these should be in group 1. They should be available because the Indian system of ayurvedic medicine has been around for 3,000 years. At the time of Homer, the ancient Greeks travelled across land to India. I once said that they went round the Cape, but I am not sure that they were capable of doing that in those days. However, they certainly went to India and learned Chinese medicine. Eighty per cent. of the population of India and Sri Lanka use Chinese medicine, and recently the first ayurvedic hospital was opened in the United Kingdom. We cannot say that there is no evidence; the problem is that we are unable to interpret it.
It was said that for group 3b—other alternative disciplines—there was no evidence. That may be the case and it is another argument for Government help to obtain better evidence. All the therapies are valid; I have experience of them all. One of the first is listed as crystal therapy. Crystals seem to work crystal radio sets. If that energy can create a radio signal, it is likely to be able to do other things. It has long been held that crystals have energies that contribute to health and well being. Many therapists who massage use crystals under their massage beds. They may not tell their patients, but they believe that the crystals enhance the energies that they are using to help to repair the body.
There is also a British Dowsing Association; I have been with those involved in the west country and watched them at work. Dowsing can be used to find water. At Charing Cross station, there are illustrations of mediaeval woodcuts that illustrate dowsing. We should not dismiss it.
Iridology is a newer science involving looking into the eyes to discover medical problems. I recently attended an exhibition at which an iridologist, who was a qualified medical practitioner, asked 20 members of the audience to go up on stage. He looked into the eyes of each person and told them what their main medical complaints were. Seventy per cent. of them said that he had got it right. I went on to the stage and he got it broadly right for me; I have problems with muscles and tendons. I talked to him about his work. He said that the advantage of iridology was that he could look into someone's eyes and tell them which internal organs were not functioning properly. Not only that, he could tell them, for example, whether it was the right or left kidney. Why go for expensive endoscopies and goodness knows what else? If there is a failing in the modern health service, it is that we rely too much on expensive equipment. The Minister is trying to balance his budget. A little basic research on doctors who use iridology will show that they find a cheaper way to treat people.
Kinesiology has to do with muscle testing. If anyone holds something poisonous, such as carbolic, and then sees whether their arm has any strength, they will find that their muscles have little; if they hold an apple, which
282WH
is harmonious with the body, the arm will have more strength. We have had demonstrations in the House, and it is a way of testing for allergies. Diets and allergies are an important part of health care in Britain today.
The final topic is so-called radionics, which is difficult for science to test using current conditions. In layman's terms, black box radionics involves the transmission of a signal that sends a healing process to someone remotely. I was talking to someone yesterday whose teenage children were in the far east; both had contracted a foot problem and had sores that would not heal. One child had nothing to do with radionics, while the other was given radionics treatment. The latter was healed, but the former had to go to Australia for treatment.
The Minister's mind should not be closed to such treatments. He should be aware that other treatments that are not the subject of the report are over the horizon, and are concerned with, for example, sick building syndrome. That is linked to the Chinese art of Feng Shui, which seeks to achieve well being through the modification of layout and orientation of workplaces. Feng Shui is concerned about "cutting Chi". I shall not talk about that today, but it is often used when a building is misplaced and is alleged to send bad energies that can cause problems in another building.
I referred to the Chinese new year. That is not set arbitrarily; the Chinese believe that, on a certain date, the energies in the sky above are very poisitve better. I was interested to find a report in a newspaper last month that stated that science has worked out that pregnancy, hangovers and visits to one's GP may be affected by the awesome power of the moon. The article stated:
Arson attacks increase by 100 per cent. during a full moon,
and added that hospital units see 10 per cent. more patients and alcohol consumption rises. If science has discovered those facts, the Government will have to address them. If so, we may see the reunification of astronomy and astrology, which split in the 16th century. I do not suggest that the Minister needs to address the matters now, but if I were to make a speech at the end of the next Parliament, they might have come into the fold. I alert him to that.
I said that those in group 1—osteopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, those who practise herbal medicine and acupuncturists—should immediately become more uniformly available throughout the United Kingdom. That is essential, and the Minister can achieve it right away. He needs to address the difficulties of efficacy with group 2 that are highlighted in the report. The problem is that too many organisations represent complementary and alternative medicine; there are about 150 in Britain.
When professional organisations within an individual therapy or profession join forces or work more closely together, quicker developments in self-regulatory structures, improved standards of training and greater recognition follow; that has happened for example, in acupuncture, aromatherapy, healing, herbal medicine and homeopathy. With not a lot of money, the Minister can help such groups to join together, especially aromatherapy and hypnotherapy, which have done well. There is great scope for the Government to intervene.

283WH
The report also recommended that in order to protect the public, professions with more than one regulatory body should make a concerted effort to bring the various bodies together and to develop a clear professional structure. A minority in the complementary movement say that there should be one regulatory badge for all approved complementary practitioners. That is not the way forward. It would be more satisfactory for each discipline to develop its own regulatory structure. Nothing that encompasses every discipline will have the credibility that it needs.
The report also deals with training for health care professionals. It proposes better training for doctors in CAM disciplines and highlights the need for other statutorily regulated health care professionals to develop clear guidelines. That is important and I hope that the Minister will refer to it. Another issue is the availability of information about CAM. There is a clear need for more effective guidance for the public about what works and what is not safe in CAM. We need a central register of information and, as the report states, central resources should be directed either through the Government or in partnership with a neutral body.
Research and development is a major topic that is covered by the report. We need to create measures that effectively evaluate the benefits experienced by users of complementary therapies and consider different ways to test them. The normal method of double-blind trials is not necessarily the best way to check their effectiveness. As highlighted in the report, one thing is certain; there is not enough research. Time and time again, complementary therapists say, "We haven't got the time to produce trials. We are up against it making a living, so how can we offer the convincing proof that is required? We get on with our job: we teach people and heal them." The Government should set up proper trials, such as that which was set up recently at Glasgow university into the effectiveness of homeopathy in treating allergies. That scientific trial found that, on average, the homeopathic patients were 22 per cent. better and the placebo group were 2.5 per cent. better. The report refers to the need to distinguish between placebo effects and medicines, and this is a good example of how that can be done. It is the kind of research that we need.
The report also recommended a central mechanism for co-ordinating and advising on CAM research and for making available research and training opportunities with resourcing from the Government. The Minister may wish to respond. There is a recommendation that the NHS, the directorate and the Medicines Research Council should pump-prime this area with dedicated research funding to develop a few centres of excellence for conducting CAM research on appropriate disciplines.
Centres of excellence will make a huge difference; look at the science park at Cambridge, for example. If we put experts together, they will produce something very special. This will not cost the Government a lot of money; in fact, it is one of the best opportunities for any Government, as I argued with the last Government. It is such a cheap way of getting new health care into the system. If we can get the assurances of efficiency that we need in some of the other disciplines that are in
284WH
group 2—not the mainstream ones such as acupuncture, herbal medicine and homeopathy, which are in group 1— we can take things forward.
The last point that I want to cover is delivery in the national health service, which I have to say is patchy or non-existent. I spoke to Leicestershire health authority yesterday; it has a policy of not intervening, which, generally speaking, is the policy of the Department. I have been in three Parliaments and I have never found advisers to the Department of Health to be particularly sympathetic to complementary medicine. The Minister should look around and see who can advise him on creating a health service that does not discriminate in the provision of those disciplines in group one.
The primary care system has failed to expand the delivery of complementary and alternative medicine. Since GP fundholding was abolished, the amount of provision of complementary health care in the NHS has fallen and I have sent letters to the Department about the failings. I received a letter from the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic in August, saying that demand had fallen off due to the new primary care group arrangements. I received another letter, from Christchurch in Dorset, about the problems that those involved there are facing. The letter said:
Funding for chiropractic services will be withdrawn from 1st of October 2000.
Those are just two examples.
I would like to finish by giving an illustration of how complementary and alternatives medicine can work in practice and how people use complementary medicine to best effect. Recently, a constituent wrote:
I've been on the sick since March and my mother's got carpal tunnel syndrome and has been waiting for an operation for a very long time.
I was asked what I, as a Member of Parliament, would do about it. I am not a physician, but I have had carpal tunnel syndrome myself—a condition where the cartilage round the wrist grips the nerve and, in my case, there is extreme pain in the second and third fingers. I went to see a doctor who at first did not pick up the problem. Subsequently, I saw the doctor's colleague who did pick it up but, in the intervening period, I visited an osteopath. That did not work, and so I went to a cranial osteopath, with limited success.
Then, I received the proper diagnosis and was told that I needed an operation, which would take a year on the NHS. I could go privately; anybody can if they have and want to spend the money. My constituent, who is on benefit, cannot afford to do so. I then went to my homeopathic doctor, who prescribed something that I think gave me relief. I have also used acupuncture, which stimulated the kidney and liver meridians to make sure that the flow of energy is better through the body to my hands. I have also used aromatherapy oils. I do not know which of those therapies has affected me; all I know is that I am better. I do not need an operation or to be a burden on the health service. I have done it all myself, and that is a good illustration of how complementary and alternative medicine works. Often, people like to move around therapies for treatment; some go to a healer, of whom there are around 20,000 in Britain.
To conclude, complementary and alternative medicine offers hope to people who have perhaps lost hope, sometimes when conventional doctors feel they

285WH
have nothing else to offer. The House of Lords Select Committee report has drawn attention to many issues that need to be addressed if complementary medicine is to play its full role in the provision of health care in the UK. I urge the Government not only to take those recommendations on board but to act on them.
The therapies in group 2 meet the Lords' criteria for being suitable for the NHS. There are 50,000 complementary therapists in the UK, and perhaps 10,000 health care professionals. Thirty thousand of those 50,000 therapists fall into the category of being suitable for the NHS. The Government should act now to make greater use of those therapists, who are an under-utilised resource. The therapists could provide comfort and relief to millions of people and bring about considerable cost savings to the Government. I rest my case.
11.31am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate, and on highlighting the valuable contribution made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. As he pointed out, we may not be dealing with a mainstream medical activity, but we are certainly dealing with a mainstream commercial and patient activity; a turnover of some £350 million and 50,000 therapists are significant.
I supported the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion because the House of Lords clearly recognised that there was a need to evaluate what was going on within the market, and to draw up some criteria, if only for consumer protection. As a conventionally trained allopathic doctor, I am aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty in medicine. Many conventional therapies are first brought out on the basis of a theory. Hopefully, the evidence follows. Certainly within my clinical lifetime, effective drugs have been introduced. However, the theory of how drugs work has probably changed three or four times in 10 years. Therefore, one must not necessarily say that because we do not understand a process, it has no value.
One has to protect people and be rigorous in the evaluation of the process, potential side-effects and outcomes in so far as one can. I have problems with the hon. Member for Bosworth's claim that the evidence is there, but we do not understand it. Scientific evaluation is exactly the same whether we are talking about the effects of food, aromatherapy or anti-cancer medication. We look at what we do to someone and the outcome, test that against another group of people who are not having that intervention and look at the results to see whether one group fairs better than another.
Mr. Tredinnick: I was thinking mainly of traditional Chinese medicine, which, after all, treats between a quarter and a third of the world's population.
There are so many universities in China that it seems strange that anyone should say that there is no evidence that those therapies work. I feel that that is due to a misunderstanding.
Dr. Brand: I did not say that there was no evidence; I merely objected to the contention that the evidence was not understood. Simply because something has been
286WH
done for a few thousand years does not mean that it is useful. The health outcomes in China are not especially good; nor are those in India. That type of medicine may be the only resource available to those populations, but their morbidity and mortality rates are far worse than they are in this country.
I have a problem, too, with the description of iridology as a new science; it is a new practice, but it cannot be called a science until it has been evaluated. One does not want to pick holes, but I also have problems with kinesiology and the idea that holding carbolic does something to one's muscles. I will have to change my soap, as I did not realise that carbolic could have such a dangerous effect on my well being.
The issue is serious, however. The House of Lords has done us a great service in considering the various complementary therapies and making an attempt to classify those that, although we may not understand them, are shown to be of value and—more important—not to do harm, and those about which we are uncertain. It is important that the consumer and patient are protected in this bewildering market. I have a problem with the enthusiastic proponents of alternative medicine because they seem to turn it into a quasi-religion. One has to accept a belief system and an entire philosophy before accepting treatment from a particular regime. That puts tremendous pressure on vulnerable people whose symptoms have not been relieved by traditional medical intervention.
I am not saying that we should never treat people because we cannot find an origin for their pain or misery, or that we should use only treatments that have gone through the double-blind trial procedures. One can often improve the patient's sense of well being through alternative methods, which has a tremendous effect on the disease process. Dr. Balint showed clearly that the placebo effect could be important, and every doctor would recognise that a doctor—in him or herself—has a placebo effect that may be powerful, either positively or negatively.
We should not close our minds to the opportunities presented by alternative medicine, but we should temper that with a degree of science. Scepticism is the wrong word; I believe that we should temper it with a degree of care for patients and consumers, for whom the Government and Members of Parliament have a responsibility.
Research is important. I do not accept that alternative practitioners can use the excuse that they are too busy to evaluate what they do. If one sets oneself up as a professional in a therapeutic regime, one has a professional duty to evaluate what one does and consider the outcomes. It cannot be acceptable to claim that one is too busy to do that. There should be a mechanism by which those evaluations are supported and published, so that a peer review can take place and they can be tested.
When a new drug comes out, one is always told that it is the best thing since sliced bread. A doctor can examine the clinical trials, but his experience with the first six patients on whom he uses the drug will determine whether he will continue to use it. We are all a bit like that. We need the science base, under the research base, to inform our gut feeling, because we

287WH
cannot run a health service on gut feeling alone. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that because, at the end of the day, it is his money that is being spent.
I want to refer briefly to the problems of access to these therapies through the national health service. The hon. Member for Bosworth said that fundholding had reduced access to complementary therapies. That is not my experience.
Mr. Tredinnick: I had intended to say that primary care groups had seen a reduction of complementary provision, but that GP fundholding had helped.
Dr. Brand: I am glad that I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct what he said by misadventure.
In my experience, fundholding created a blossoming of access to alternative medicine, for three reasons. First, the interventions on the whole were not harmful. Doctors are always minded that their first duty is not to do harm. Secondly, patients liked being referred to alternative practitioners. Thirdly, the interventions were, on the whole, very cheap. That may be a cynical point, but it is certainly advantageous to make significant savings on a prescribing budget by sending patients to a homeopathic practitioner or an acupuncturist, provided that one is not denying those patients more appropriate treatment.
Some of the more ideologically motivated complementary practitioners deliberately stand in the way of conventional medicine and significant treatment, believing that people must commit themselves to their philosophy of medical care. That is dangerous. Faith healers can also be dangerous in that way. There was a vicar in my village who did not believe in medicine; according to him, all cancers were caused by lack of faith, and church attendance was the solution to everyone's problems. When he tried to stop his mother-in-law taking her heart medication, I felt that I had to intervene. I was not sure whether he had done that because he did not like his mother-in-law, but I thought that his faith was being pushed on to a third individual, which was totally inappropriate. One sometimes sees instances of that; it shows that there is a need to protect the public from undue enthusiasts for such therapies.
Will the Minister do some work on the availability of complementary medicine since the establishment of primary care groups and trusts? In my own primary care group, we have reduced the access to complementary therapy. In my practice, we had access to an excellent acupuncturist and a homoeopathist, and found it valuable. The audits that we did on their interventions showed that they were helpful in about 30 per cent. of cases and extremely helpful in the 5 per cent. of cases that had not been helped by anything else. As I said, it was safe and cost-effective.
Our fundholding practice worked as a multi-fund, rather than an individual practice making individual decisions. We developed a menu from which individual fundholders could pick what they thought was most appropriate for their patients. Some patient groups therefore had access to alternative therapies; others did not because some doctors and patients were more
288WH
enthusiastic than others about alternative medicine. That is appropriate; it is not for a central organisation to determine what is best for an individual patient within a locality.
Largely as a result of Government pressure, primary care groups now follow the doctrine of giving everyone equal access to every intervention, which has resulted in some people—depending on the membership of the groups making commissioning decisions—saying that the majority of GPs do not believe that therapies such as acupuncture or homeopathy have a place and that it would be inequitable for anyone to have access to them. That is not a positive way forward. It is more reasonable to have a fairly wide menu of interventions and then allow individual practitioners, in discussion with patients, to decide what is best for a particular patient within a particular practice.
If a GP has strong feelings that no one should be referred outside the conventional envelope, patients may still have access to the alternatives if they feel strongly that that is what they want. Will the Minister reflect on whether his laudable attempt to make access to medical intervention equitable around the country will stifle some of the more imaginative approaches that were taken in the past?
Some complementary medicines play a similar role to counselling and psychotherapy; they are a supportive mechanism, and if they make people feel better and are not disproportionately expensive, that is excellent. It is ridiculous that we have had to sack our acupuncturist, but can still obtain acupuncture by sending people to a consultant anaesthetist in a pain clinic—which is considerably more expensive than treatment from an in-house practitioner who was popular with our patient group.
The report is helpful and shows a way forward. The box system is extremely helpful. It is for those who think that they have been placed in the wrong group to make the case to become more part of the mainstream. I am also glad that recommendations have been made on professional accountability and insurance. I began practising medicine at a time when one could be struck off for referring someone to a non-medically qualified practitioner, on the grounds that we should not dabble with such people as osteopaths and chiropractors but should refer patients only to what were seen as subsidiary disciplines such as physiotherapy. I am very glad that that attitude has disappeared and that we now recognise professional expertise outside the strictly medical circle. We have an approach of teamwork, centred around the patient.
It is important to set up a system that enables alternative practitioners who want to join that team to take responsibility and to accept liability for their actions. The disciplines in group 1 have taken that on board, which is why the House of Lords found them much easier to deal with than those in group 3, who rely more on faith than on evidence.
11.50 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing the debate. It is good to have an opportunity to debate the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology report on complementary and alternative medicine.

289WH
I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work; the report is comprehensive and most informative to those of us who are not familiar with the range of alternative and complementary therapies. I cannot comment on the efficacy of the diverse range of therapies and I would not attempt to do so. The Select Committee was the best forum in which to attempt the difficult task of categorising the different therapies.
The question that was paramount in the Select Committee's work was how best to protect the public. Anyone who visits a complementary therapist places himself or herself in a position of trust, in the same way as someone who visits a conventional practitioner does. It is a one-to-one relationship in which the patient's problem is discussed in privacy and with a degree of confidentiality, which people expect the therapist to respect. Recommendations are made and a solution may be suggested or treatment practised during that therapy session. We must seriously consider whether more protection should be afforded to people visiting the blossoming range of alternative therapists.
It is interesting that 40 per cent. of general practitioners refer their patients to practitioners of alternative and complementary therapies. I am not surprised by the statistic given by my hon. Friend that one third of Members of Parliament have direct, personal experience of alternative and complementary medicines. The public are prepared to pay individually to receive treatments in the belief that they will address their problems. Alternative and complementary medicine is expanding and playing a more important role, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) explained, and conventional practitioners are having to get their heads round the way in which these different medicines may work together with conventional medicine.
What can be done to protect the public is a topical question. Last night, there was a debate on the Floor of the House about the dreadful events that led to the murders of the patients of Dr. Shipman. God forbid that there should be a repetition of a Shipman situation, even on a minor scale, in alternative and complementary medicine. Some safeguards must be put in place.
We made an attempt to afford the public better protection during proceedings on the Care Standards Act 2000. My hon. Friends and I tabled a new clause, which would have enabled the Care Standards Commission to regulate complementary medicine by requiring it to maintain a register of alternative therapists. It would have given the Secretary of State important powers to protect the public in respect of the description of services, claims made in respect of services, and techniques that might be employed. Our constructive proposal was rebuffed on the grounds that, as the Select Committee was undertaking an inquiry, it was riot an appropriate moment to seize the legislation and make such a provision. We were told that we should wait to find out what came out of that inquiry and react accordingly.
We have all now read the Select Committee's report, which contains several recommendations. Do the Government accept that regulation of complementary and alternative medicine is necessary? If so, which of the two routes that the Select Committee considered under the Health Act 1999—a single body representing the entire profession applying for statutory regulation by
290WH
order in the Privy Council, or a new health professions council—do the Government believe would be better? Will they say now, as they were not able to say when the Select Committee was taking evidence, what the advantages and disadvantages would be of those alternative routes to regulation?
The reason given for not responding at the time to the Select Committee's questions on that point was that one of the two options—the new health professions council—was subject to consultation. The consultation is now over, and the Department will have received all responses by the beginning of November at the latest. Did those responses raise questions about incorporating alternative and complementary medicine under the umbrella of the new health professions council, and if so, what is the Minister's view of those questions?
The Select Committee report also recommends that national studies should be commissioned to obtain more detailed quantitative information about the extent of complementary and alternative medicine in use in the United Kingdom. Our debate has revealed that, as legislators, we are operating in the dark on the matter. We are not sure how many practitioners are involved and where they are. The Government have a responsibility to keep tabs on developments in the blossoming field of alternative medicine. I should be interested to know whether they accept the recommendation that such studies should be undertaken.
We do not yet know the outcome of the consultation, but one of my anxieties about the Government's proposal to create a new health professions council relates to the slightly untidy arrangements that will result. Some of the professions allied to medicine are already regulated by statutory arrangements; indeed, osteopaths have their own Act. That has led to not a little local jealousy from some of the other professions, which are worried that, as they will not have a similar legislative basis for their regulation, they will suffer as a result of inferior regulatory arrangements. That problem is difficult to avoid, as the existing legislation is already in place. A problem might arise if one of the routes recommended by the Select Committee were taken. A range of alternative and complementary therapies are available. Will some be regulated by statutory order while others come under the umbrella of the health professions council? That presents some difficulty, and I should be genuinely interested to hear how the Minister suggests that we proceed, given those diverse arrangements.
The Department of Health plays an important role in signalling to the conventional medical community the areas in which research should be conducted. The Government send signals to research councils about areas of prioritisation that they would like to see pursued. Should the Department of Health send similar signals to research councils about promoting more of a research culture in complementary and alternative medicine?
What plans do the Government have for regulating the professions allied to medicine, either by statutory means or by the health professions council route? Does the Minister accept that regulating areas of conventional medicine would help to lay an important pathway for the recognition of qualifications and training in the new therapies? That would also enhance

291WH
the standing of the new professions in complementary medicine. When we debated the new clause during the proceedings on the Care Standards Bill, it received a positive reaction from representatives from the complementary medicine professions, who saw in it an opportunity to establish received pathways to recognition as a qualified practitioner. Does the Minister accept that that would benefit the practitioners and their customers? Were we to place ourselves in the hands of an alternative therapist, we would receive some reassurance from knowing that that therapist had a recognised qualification for the skill that he was practising.
The Select Committee report on complementary and alternative medicine focused on the diversity of therapists and their skills and how they might be regulated, but it did not touch on the products used, which are an important part of the therapy. A homeopath might make use of very different products from those prescribed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, with his depth of experience. That is an important area.
The Minister is sure to be aware that the United Kingdom is currently in a difficult position. A new European directive to control products used by alternative and complementary therapists regards some of the well-established products sold in health food shops, such as vitamins and herbal remedies, as medicines. Practitioners are concerned that remedies hitherto widely used by the public might be restricted if subject to the kind of directives envisaged at a European level. Medicines should be vigorously tested—I am sure that we would all agree that the public should not be placed at risk because of a medicine that had been inadequately tested—but many remedies have been in use for many years.
Testing is an expensive process, and new, novel medicines often fall at the first fence because a company has insufficient resources to have them tested. The position of a number of established remedies may be precarious if they are caught in a rigorous new medicines directive. I know that a number of practitioners of complementary and alternative medicines would be interested to hear the Government's view on the proposed new directive.
12.4 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on raising the subject of alternative and complementary medicines today. I congratulate him also on the depth of his knowledge of the subject, which is probably unrivalled in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has rightly praised the hon. Gentleman for his tireless devotion to those subjects. I should also like to pay tribute to his commitment to his cause.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting reference to the impact that the full moon can sometimes have on our lives. I have no idea whether there is a full moon today or whether it has had any influence on our debate,
292WH
but he certainly made some intriguing remarks about that, which gave everyone who heard them pause for thought.
I compliment also the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on his thoughtful comments. He posed the issue in terms of public safety. I do not think that this is just about public safety; it goes much wider than that. I agree that public safety issues are important, but there is another issue to which he rightly referred. NHS doctors and patients must have the widest possible choice of available remedies. We must also ensure that NHS resources are used effectively. We must not just balance important issues of public safety; we must do all those things simultaneously. That is a difficult balancing act, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Bosworth would be the first to concede.
We are quite clear about the priorities on which we should focus at the moment. When we came into office, the NHS was under-doctored and under-nursed. Too many health care services were being delivered in Victorian buildings. Those are our priorities, in addition to dealing with the top clinical priorities that the NHS faces; the big killers such as cancer and coronary heart disease, where our survival rates are simply not acceptable and where more work has to be done to improve services.
A difficult set of choices has to be made by Governments of whatever party. We have tried to set out through the NHS plan and all our other work the key priorities behind our commitment to modernise and reform the NHS and to increase its capacity to meet the needs of our complex society in the 21st century. I want to refer to how alternative and complementary medicine can play a part in that in my response to the hon. Member for Bosworth's detailed and thought-provoking comments.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight expressed his support for the Government's efforts to promote greater consistency of NHS provision across England. That is an important focus for our work, but he is wrong to conclude from his example that GPs were being required to fit themselves into a straitjacket of policy that would narrow the options available to them. That is not what we are doing.
Dr. Brand: I do not think that that is the perception of some of the primary care groups and primary care trusts on the ground. There is a risk of losing diversity of choice for the sake of equity of access.
Mr. Hutton: I strongly believe that we can avoid, and have avoided, making that trade-off. We have always made it clear in relation to the reforms that we made to primary care that we want to level up the provision of services. The hon. Gentleman gave an example from his own practice. He said that access to complementary medicine had been narrowed down. I do not dispute that for a second, but that is a choice that he and his colleagues made locally—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may want to correct me, but we believe that our reforms to primary care will improve the delivery of services. Our reforms will end—I must tell the hon. Member for Bosworth—the totally unacceptable state of affairs created by GP fundholding. Far from increasing choice, it effectively narrowed it for many patients. We are determined to put right that wholly unacceptable change to the NHS.

293WH
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked about professional regulation and research and asked what signal the Department would send to the complementary alternative sector about the importance of research. I have a simple message; research is very important. A strong, research-based culture would be beneficial to complementary and alternative medicine, and we would welcome it; as would, I am sure, the hon. Member for Bosworth.
Debate has rightly focused on the House of Lords report into complementary and alternative medicines. The report represents the first-ever comprehensive inquiry into complementary medicine in the United Kingdom by any parliamentary Select Committee. Written evidence was submitted by 180 individuals and organisations, 46 of whom were subsequently called to give oral evidence. That testifies to the thoroughness with which the Committee approached its task. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health also appeared before the Committee towards the end of its deliberations.
We are debating the issue today before the Government have published our response to their Lordships' report. The hon. Member for Bosworth will accept that I cannot anticipate the Government's full response here, although it will be published in the near future. The response will, of course, be published and presented to Parliament as a command paper. In the normal run of events, there would be a debate in the Lords, but that is a matter for the Committee itself to determine.
In recent years, we have seen increased public interest in and use of complementary medicine. It is a thriving feature of the private health care sector. Some forms of complementary medicine are also provided in the NHS on the basis of clinical need, usually as an adjunct to orthodox treatment and sometimes practised by members of the orthodox health professions. The Government are aware that many people have found complementary medicine helpful and that it has some powerful advocates, including some from the world of orthodox medicine.
Today's debate has touched on the main themes in the report—regulation, training, research, information and NHS use. Reference has also been made to how the report has introduced some structure to the world of complementary and alternative medicine by classifying therapies into three primary groups.
The first group embraces what the Committee refers to as the "principal disciplines"; osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicine and homeopathy. The second contains the therapies most often used to complement conventional medicine, such as aromatherapy, massage and reflexology. The third consists of disciplines that, in the view of the Committee, adopt a philosophical approach very different to the scientific principles of conventional medicine. Some of these are long-established, traditional forms of health care, such as traditional Chinese and ayurvedic medicine. Others are therapies that the Committee viewed as lacking a credible evidence base, such as crystal therapy and iridology—both mentioned by the hon. Member for Bosworth.
I recognise the difficulty of generalising about such a diverse range of therapies, but it is important that we begin to introduce more structure into the
294WH
complementary medicine world, not least to help patients and the general public better understand what they are dealing with. Not every therapy will fit exactly into the wide definitions suggested in the report, but I recognise the potential value of adopting sensible working definitions as a foundation for making real progress in future.
Among other things, the structure and definitions in the report provide a useful template for developing the regulation of complementary and alternative medicine therapies. As the report has suggested, some therapies have reached the stage where they ought seriously to consider preparing for regulation on a statutory basis. Other therapies need to progress to the point where they have their own recognisable voluntary regulatory bodies. In time, some of them may also become suitable candidates for some form of statutory regulation. One thing is sure. If complementary and alternative medicine is to be recognised as a respected member of the caring professions, it must put in place a proper regulatory framework that will raise standards and protect patients.
In giving evidence to the Committee in October, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health said that effective regulation of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners was important to ensure proper protection and support for patients. She also made clear the Government's view that without effective regulation, it was hard to promote greater uptake of complementary medicine in the NHS.
The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, who also gave evidence to the Committee, made it clear that he thought it important that as professions formed themselves into recognisable professional bodies, they were brought forward into the right statutory framework.
In this respect, Department of Health officials have already held exploratory meetings with representatives of the two professions that the Committee considered could be early candidates for statutory regulation; herbalism and acupuncture. These discussions have focused on the steps that each profession needs to take in preparation for statutory regulations.
The scope and nature of any future statutory regulation of these professions needs to be discussed more widely and there will need to be full consultation. Among other things, consultation could explore the feasibility of including aspects of the practice of traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda and other forms of traditional medicine based on herbs in the arrangements made to regulate herbalists as a whole. This could offer a way forward to some of the disciplines, which the Committee has chosen to categorise as group 3 therapies.
In relation to other professions, we have stated our support for the work being done by the Foundation for Integrated Medicine to help establish and improve voluntary, regulatory schemes. The foundation will be holding a conference next week, to which it has invited a wide range of regulatory and professional bodies from complementary medicine. The aim of this conference is to encourage constructive debate about taking forward the recommendations in the report. An open forum of this sort will give the various professional groups an

295WH
ideal opportunity to discuss what the Committee has recommended in relation to regulation and professional standards and to consider how they will respond.
We do not, of course, view complementary and alternative medicine in isolation. We are currently working hard to raise standards across the NHS and the private sector in patient-centred care, in better equipped, better trained and better regulated professions. The higher standards that we are setting for the NHS will provide a yardstick against which complementary and alternative medicine should be measuring itself, whether it is practised in the private sector or the NHS and whether it is provided by doctors and nurses or by complementary medicine therapists.
Regulation of products is important and the hon. Member for Meriden referred to this. Following extensive consultation with UK interest groups, we are now working with our partners in Europe on proposals for a directive in traditional medicines. The aim is to provide a framework for the effective regulation of traditional herbal remedies, balancing public safety and consumer choice. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Commission has produced a first draft of that directive and the Medicines Control Agency has produced some initial responses. I am very happy to let the hon. Lady see the response of the Medicines Control Agency; it may be in the Library.
There is significant concern in the UK at the moment about the way in which these issues are being dealt with. There are about 500 licensed herbal medicines available on the UK market and many more are sold under section 12 exemptions. The difficulty with the existing arrangements is that whereas the normal licensing arrangement provides strong protection for the public, they have been perceived by some as limiting public choice. The section 12 herbal exemptions offer the public greater choice, but do not always provide adequate protection. There is every opportunity that this work can be taken forward successfully with our colleagues in Europe and that is the best place for this type of work to be done.
An important function of professional regulation is setting standards for training and education. I accept that there is a lot of work to be done in this area in training health care practitioners who aspire to practise complementary medicine and providing more undergraduate doctors and nurses with some familiarisation with complementary medicine. The important thing will be for the professional bodies involved to set clear standards and to work closely together in doing so.
We will continue to encourage complementary medicine regulatory bodies to set clear and consistent professional standards for their registrants and to work with education and training institutions to ensure that these institutions offer qualifications that meet these standards. As I said, there is much work to be done. Officials from the Department have discussed the report's recommendations with the Department of Education and Employment, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Quality Assurance
296WH
Agency. Once the Government's response to the report has been published, I am sure that wider consultation is likely to follow.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister said earlier that there would be a Government response in the very near future. Does that mean this month or next month? It would be reassuring to hear that it did. I have not yet heard him say anything about the issuing of guidance to health authorities on complementary and alternative medicine, so perhaps he could address that point. Does he intend to set up a register of practitioners?
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; I will deal with all his points.
Hon. Members have talked about the need for more research into complementary and alternative medicine. Complementary medicine needs better research, not just more research. The most popular therapies, at least, need to be underpinned by more definitive, high-quality research evidence. Everyone recognises that it will take time to produce such evidence, but opportunities exist for researchers to train in the techniques that they will require and the academic expertise is beginning to come together to help to co-ordinate research efforts. My Department welcomes applications to fund complementary medicine research projects, provided that they offer a clear link to one of the NHS priority areas.
In the meantime, I fully accept that information on complementary and alternative medicine, such as it is, needs to be carefully synthesised and made available in a much more user-friendly way both to the wider public and to health professionals. The provision of better information for patients is a key feature of the NHS plan, and work is in hand to include complementary medicine in the information that will be made available more widely to the public.
Better information on complementary medicine will be in patients' interests twice over. First, it will help them to decide which therapies could be appropriate for them and where to go for treatment. Secondly, it will inform them of the professional standards to expect. When the public expect and demand high standards of complementary medicine practitioners, the complementary medicine professions will have even more incentive to put high standards in place and to live up to them.
We have given the Foundation for Integrated Medicine a grant to create a database of information, which will enable it to advise anyone who wants more information on regulatory bodies and the codes of conduct that they follow. Regulatory bodies must be the repository of more detailed information about registered practitioners, the appropriateness of their treatments, likely costs and complaints procedures. Information on the nature of treatments is also available from a wide range of other reputable sources. NHS Direct will be able to expand the information that it provides when authoritative evidence of safety and effectiveness becomes available and proper regulatory systems are in place.
It is important for both complementary and orthodox medical practitioners to share information with one another about their treatments. In fact, there is

297WH
considerable scope for the two sides of medicine to work together more collaboratively. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bosworth saw the leading article in last week's British Medical Journal that argued for much greater integration of complementary and orthodox medicine. He referred to that approach, and I strongly believe that there is much to commend it.
The hon. Gentleman was anxious for me to talk about NHS provision. Complementary medicine can, and often does, play a part in treating NHS patients. An informal survey carried out on behalf of the Department of Health a year ago found that 58 per cent. of primary care groups were providing patients with access to some form of complementary medicine. We continue to keep a watchful eye on the extent to which primary care groups make complementary medicine services available.
As part of an on-going work programme, we have commissioned Sheffield university's medical care research unit to undertake a detailed study into the impact that primary care groups have had on access to complementary medicine through NHS primary care. The study will be completed at the end of 2001 and will help to inform our future policy.
We have collaborated with others to produce a basic information pack for primary care groups on complementary medicine. The pack was built on the results of the informal survey previously carried out for the Department of Health and focused on the therapies that that study had shown to be most commonly encountered in primary care; chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, homeopathy and aromatherapy. As well as offering information about the nature of each therapy and the conditions that were most likely to benefit from them, the pack discussed the regulatory status of practitioners and provided sources of further information. Several examples were included of how those therapies had been adopted in primary care.
We circulated that pack to primary care groups and sent a shorter companion booklet to all GPs in England in July. The feedback that we received suggested that many people found it helpful. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health mentioned to the House of Lords Select Committee, we hope to produce a new version of the pack for patients.
Mrs. Spelman: We obviously need to be careful with the use of public money for the provision of health care.
298WH
Could he assure me that what is provided for the NHS is based on evidence, and not just on popularity? There needs to be a proper evidence base behind the provision of complementary and alternative medicine on the NHS; the fact that a therapy has been made available because it is popular is not quite the same thing.
Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Lady, and that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health in her evidence to the Committee; popularity is never enough, and there has to be an evidence base of effectiveness. Towards the end of this year, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be publishing evidence-based guidance to the NHS on supportive and palliative care for cancer patients. The guidance will aim to improve patients' experience of cancer care and, in doing so, improve the quality of life for all those affected by cancer.
The hon. Member for Bosworth might be interested to know that one of the issues that NICE is considering, as it prepares its guidance, is the potential benefit that cancer patients derive from complementary services. As I said earlier, if complementary medicine aspires to be equal with other forms of NHS treatment, it must meet the same standards. It must be clear and realistic about the contributions that it can make, and it should work in an integrated way with other forms of treatment. Effective regulation of practitioners is important, as is an appropriate evidence base for the treatments that they offer.
The report sets an authoritative agenda for change. Some of the complementary and alternative medicine professions have begun making the improvements that they need to secure a more lasting place in public affections. They must now drive forward these changes more decisively, and the professions that have still to put those changes in hand must do so more urgently.
Mr. Tredinnick: Before he finishes, will the Minister state what "in the very near future" means in terms of the Government response?
Mr. Hutton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman reminded me of that. I think that it will be published in the next few weeks, although I cannot go much further than that, other than to say that the Government certainly welcome the report and will be setting out a full response in the near future.

Sheppey Community Hospital
12.27pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Part of my constituency is an island and it is known as the Isle of Sheppey. Islanders throughout the world feel that they are unique, and even if they are not, that is their perception of themselves. Of course, that does not apply to my islanders, because they are unique.
The Isle of Sheppey has never been permanently linked to the mainland of Britain, but that is due to end soon. As part of the Labour Government's commitment to the community that I represent, they are to build a new bridge, which I hope will be called the Queensferry bridge, and which was part of our 1998 roads review scheme. It is due to start in 2003, for completion in 2005. The Highways Agency is not known for its transparency, so I urge it to confirm that timetable as soon as possible—this afternoon would do.
The way in which the previous Tory Government went about the island's planning issues and the way in which they understood difficult words such as "infrastructure" and "funding" has been a joy to behold. It is like a bad dream—housing and more housing. There is housing everywhere. But every time that the building of a new school is in the plan, Tory-controlled Kent county council always reneges on its promises to build one.
In my short life I have found that housing tends to be occupied by people, and that they need professional back-up if the quality of their life is to be maintained. They immediately need roads to travel on, as well as a bus service. They need water companies that do not have failed pumping stations, or perpetual sewage flooding their brand new gardens or sidewalks, especially in the summer. They need doctors' surgeries to be included in these plans at the micro level, and they need to know that at the macro level the Government have planned for an adequate number of new general practitioner recruits to enter the system. They need a local community hospital.
Minister, you need to come and minister to Minster, on the Isle of Sheppey, because at Minster we have a building that doubles as a hospital. It is in a dreadful state of repair. The staff do a marvellous job, almost despite the system. I hope that they will get their due rewards in heaven. They are our public servants and public heroes. They are not the fancy, unaccountable consultants who, one by one, have found excuses not to continue their clinics there, or the myriad faceless administrators who have to fight our corner.
Those nurses, cleaners, cooks, ambulance drivers and doctors are the glue that keep the national health service working—in some cases, barely working—on an island not yet connected to the mainland, where the nearest accident and emergency department is 20 miles away. When the trains are running and the buses turn up, it takes about two hours on public transport to travel from Warden bay or Leysdown on the east of Sheppey to Medway Maritime hospital and two hours to get back. It is tiring, expensive and often frustrating, especially when one arrives to find that one's notes are missing or that the appointment has been cancelled by mistake. One would be forgiven for thinking that we were talking about a third world country.
300WH
For those reasons, my island has not had a healthy respect for past Tory Governments. It would be fair to say that it is also running out of patience with the current Labour Government.
When I was on the hustings in April and May 1997, my Tory predecessor was fond of telling us that a new £10 million private finance initiative-funded spanking new community hospital, albeit smaller than was originally planned, was almost signed off. Four years on, it is not signed off and we have no idea when it will be.
My community is very angry, and it is justified in being so, for many reasons. Although I have toiled away trying to make Sir William Wells take some decisive action over the sheer incompetence of the administration of which he is the chief executive officer, I have failed. There is little public respect left for the administrators of the NHS in my patch.
All that we want is a small community hospital. The funding is minuscule. It is about £11 million: a snip. In the two years when we said that we would abide by the Tory spending plans—1997–98 and 1998–1999—the total spending for West Kent health authority was £479.9 million in the first year and £501.4 million in the second. We have done better than that. We increased the budget by 11.6 per cent. in 1999–2000 and by a further 13 per cent. in 2000–01. Next year the initial allocation, which at this time does not include further sums that are still to be debated and agreed, has increased by at least 8 per cent. My constituents understand that expenditure tends to increase year on year anyway, because wages and salary costs must be taken into consideration, but the figures that I have quoted, whose source was the acting finance director at West Kent health authority, are in real terms. Therefore, £11 million is still a snip.
Instead, we have had a series of dreadful decisions. The first was the Tory love affair with private finance initiatives. Although the Tories introduced PFIs in 1992, not one PFI hospital was signed off by 1997—and that from a party that was supposed to be close to the City and business. Thankfully, under the Labour Government 38 major hospitals across the United Kingdom, worth £4.1 billion, have been given approval to proceed under the PFI since 1 May 1997. That is the biggest hospital-building programme since 1945. Alas, for some reason we have not been able to find a mere £11 million for Sheppey: a snip.
There we were in May 1997, months away from that snip of a hospital. Of course, as with the new bridge, which was one of 500 road schemes with no Treasury bills attached, we took most of our first year setting down some rules and regulations about how PFIs should work, and not just in the NHS. That was good and sensible government. What none of us can understand—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us—is who took the decision in her Department to move the goalposts so that our snip of a PFI suddenly had to embrace four other small community hospitals. I have given the Minister some notice of that question, and I look forward to her response.
That decision was wrong. It was seriously flawed. Five health authorities were obliged to pay out five sets of legal and consultancy bills. Surely that was not in the rules that we laid down in 1997 and 1998. Thames Gateway NHS trust has spent nearly £1 million in costs

301WH
to sustain a £11 million snip of a community hospital. Which chief executive officer gave approval for that amount of money to be spent when we still do not have a decision on a hospital?
Thus our snip of a community hospital became a larger snip, and we waited and waited for a decision about the future of Sheppey community hospital. I even had a visitation from the chief executives of West Kent health authority and Thames Gateway NHS trust in my office in the House of Commons. They told me that all was well. I was told that it would happen in 1998, then 1999, then 2000—and now we do not have a clue.
Throughout all this time, the old hospital at Minster has deteriorated further. The clinics have decreased. The beds have been reduced. The service that the islanders receive is well below the level of the service provided to those of my constituents who live in Sittingbourne, who have the wonderful services of Sittingbourne memorial hospital. I thought that we were supposed to want an end to postcode health care. I also thought that we were supposed to favour our poorer communities. We just want the community hospital to he given the go-ahead.
The Treasury rightly turned down the PFI. Why, if it was that obvious, was a marginal business case made for it in the first place? At what stage did the Minister become aware in her Department that there was a case for trying to justify the unjustifiable?
Enough. My community wants its community hospital. We have been waiting for over a decade. We want the Government to release the money. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), then Secretary of State, said to me in the House of Commons at Question Time:
The people of Sheppey are entitled to a decent community hospital, and that is what we are determined to provide—one way or another.—[Official Report, 8 June lo99; Vol. 332, c.456].
As the Minister knows, on 4 April 2000 I wrote to the Prime Minister, pleading for the hospital. Will the Minister please announce, in her response, the funding solution and the day that we can expect the first brick to be laid?
12.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate on the Sheppey community hospital and I pay tribute to his vociferous and unceasing commitment to placing his constituents' case on the record. Every Health Minister, and even the Prime Minister, must be aware of his concerns. I fully understand and endorse the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey to ensuring that all his constituents receive the best possible health care services. He kindly gave notice of some of his major concerns, and I hope to be able to address his very specific questions. Should I inadvertently leave anything out, we will write to him.
I shall respond very specifically to one comment. My hon. Friend refers to "faceless administrators", but he pays tribute to the people who work in the national health service locally, and to the nurses and doctors whom he encounters. Although I fully accept that he may not often see the administrators, I assure him that they care just as much about the NHS as the more visible
302WH
people. Moreover, I can reassure him that that commitment to a better NHS is not just on the front line. However, I support him in saying thank you to all those in his constituency who work to make the NHS better for the patients.
I am also aware that the decision not to proceed with the proposed private finance initiative scheme for Sheppey has caused considerable uncertainty to the local community. The cancellation of the various projects has further compounded that uncertainty, not least because this is not the first Adjournment debate that I have been part of in relation to that issue, and I am probably more familiar with the details than I would always like to be.
I know that my hon. Friend has been in close contact with Ministers and that he has met the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to set out his concerns in more detail. Today, I should like clarify the current position and say what the next steps will be. I hope that this will end any uncertainty and reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey that his constituents' needs will be addressed. Moreover, I hope that, after the debate, my hon. Friend will be left in no doubt that the Government are dedicated to ensuring that his constituents receive first-class health services in a new community hospital.
With my hon. Friend's permission, I should like to begin by reiterating the Government's support for PFI and take the opportunity to remind him of the key principles behind PFI and the key factors that need to be taken into account when approving any PFI case. It is important to do so, to make it clear why we decided that the PFI scheme proposed for Sheppey was not the right way forward. I know that my hon. Friend has been involved in business and knows that the path of good decision making is sometimes to say, "On this particular occasion, we do not proceed". That does not undermine the whole process or the whole case.
When the Government came to power in 1997, the NHS was crying out for the biggest building programme in its history. There had been chronic underinvestment for far too long and the private finance initiative is key, because it will provide extra resources for the NHS building programme. The initiative transfers many capital investment risks to the private sector and ultimately results in better care for patients and best value for money for the taxpayer. The process is designed to allow the NHS and the private sector to work together effectively, to build new hospitals or provide information technology services.
I know that my hon. Friend is extremely keen on using new technology and would not argue with me for a moment that the private sector is a very useful source to complement Government action, not only with capital but also with ideas. However, PFI also deals with support services or the supply and maintenance of equipment, and it provides an opportunity for the NHS and the private sector to liaise and provide fruitful results that are beneficial to both parties. Within our commitment to expansion of the NHS, there is increasing support from the PFI initiative, leading to improved facilities nationwide.

303WH
My hon. Friend mentioned the postcode lottery. We are aware that one of the biggest problems that we still face in the NHS is huge differences in performance between both institutions and areas, but also sometimes within institutions. We strongly feel that the way to deal with the situation is in terms of capacity. In a sense, money is no longer the real problem, as the money is there, but we must ensure that the money comes with the right price tag. The right price tag is that we change the way in which we deliver the service, but also use it with best value.
I return to the PFI projects. Thirty-four major hospital developments, worth over £3.7 billion, have been given approval to proceed on the PFI since 1 May 1997. My hon. Friend is right when he draws attention to the fact that although the previous Government showed in their rhetoric that they were determined to use PFI, they did not make it work. Not a single new hospital was built under the PFI scheme. We have already completed some of these hospitals, and have seen that it works.
The NHS plan that we published in July 2000 included a number of PFI commitments: to set up 18 more schemes in 2001 and 2002, to provide at least 40 more medium-sized hospitals by 2010, to provide 20 new diagnostic and treatment centres by 2004 and to invest up to £1 billion in primary care facilities. PFI does work and we have seen it work. We are committed to developing new forms of public-private partnership that work better and protect the interests of the NHS. The bottom line is that it works better for the NHS.
PFI does have a future, but that does not mean that it is always the best solution, and in the case of Sheppey it was not the best solution. My hon. Friend has referred several times to £11 million as a snip. I can see why he may think that it is a snip in terms of the entire NHS budget, but we still have to be very careful that £11 million is used in a right and proper way.
Factors that need careful consideration before PFI schemes can be approved include the following: overall value for money, the need for proposals to represent best value, and whether a scheme would be better value for the NHS and the taxpayer under PFI than it would be under the equivalent NHS alternative. Proposals must also be affordable, and local health authorities and those that commission services must be able to afford the overall cost of a proposed scheme.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that hospitals are complex buildings and take considerable effort to design. That is why all PFI schemes in the NHS are subject to review before they are approved. The results of the national beds inquiry have led us to look at a number of larger projects to ensure that those big designs fit the requirements of the community. It is a complex jigsaw.
I know that there is considerable frustration about the time that the process can take, and I do acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised about that today. The process is lengthy and detailed, even if the PFI scheme succeeds. When there is a situation like the one in Sheppey, there comes a point when it is clearly recognised that the PFI is not the way forward. That causes a further delay, and I fully acknowledge that, but
304WH
I hope that it is understood that we are taking the constituents' best interests to heart and will ensure that we can deliver. However, it is vital that all critical factors have been accounted for and are properly tested. Reviews must ensure that schemes represent a good deal for the public, and that can take time. If schemes fail to meet these criteria, they do not proceed. Sadly, the Sheppey PFI proposal failed on the two criteria: value for money and affordability.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of detailed issues concerning the responsibilities for procurement decision making. I would like to confirm that for all the schemes referred to, the trusts received NHS Executive approval for their outline business cases prior to commencing procurement.
No decision was taken to procure the schemes as one PFI scheme. However, a decision was taken to try to expedite the development process by agreeing a framework contract on one scheme, Sheppey, that could then be used as a template for the others. In a sense, although a number of schemes were going on that appeared to be going forward as one package, it was an umbrella package. It was not the case that suddenly Sheppey, with its snippet demand for £11 million, was thrown into a much bigger pot. That decision was reached by the trusts in liaison with their legal advisers and the NHS Executive. The decision did not require Treasury or ministerial approval.
The trusts pursued negotiations with the Investors in Health consortium to develop a value-for-money solution, in accordance with NHS Executive guidance. When it became clear that, despite the intensive efforts of the trusts and the NHS Executive, a value-for-money solution could not be agreed, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, was informed and agreed that further work should be terminated. However unfortunate it may be when such decisions have to be taken, if that is the right decision, we have to take it.
I can confirm that all the trusts involved followed established practice and Treasury and NHS Executive guidance throughout the procurement process. I recognise that money has been spent during the development of these schemes. However, that money was invested to ensure that the schemes would be approved only if they provided value for money. That investment is more cost-effective in the long run than proceeding with a scheme that is not economically sound. It is one of those paradoxes that we have to face. If we have to invest, sometimes in schemes that will not be proceeded with, the important issue is to ensure that we learn what made each scheme inappropriate. We are continuously fine-tuning that process.
What matters now is how we are moving forward and what we are doing to ensure that the health care needs of the people of Sheppey are met. I am sure that at some stage my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey will be back on the stump in his election hustings. I would be extremely surprised if his constituents were to ask him which funding groups were used for the provision of the health care. They will want to know whether they will get the health care that they need on the island.
Once it was decided, in November, not to proceed with the PFI option, Ministers stressed how important it was for all parties concerned to move forward as quickly

305WH
as possible with alternative arrangements to ensure that the health care needs of the local people were met. A review process was immediately initiated to appraise alternative options for provision of the new hospital, and concurrently to reaffirm the service model and functional requirements of the new facility. A priority has been to consider the proposal put forward by the Isle of Sheppey healthcare charity for funding and provision of the new hospital, which my hon. Friend mentioned today. Should that option prove not to be viable, the review will also consider the potential for public funding of the scheme.
The review has been fully supported by the south-east regional office of the NHS Executive. The views and opinions of the local stakeholders have been taken into account, as have those that my hon. Friend raised in correspondence and conversations with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. The review is close to completion and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey appreciates that it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on its outcome now. An announcement will be made in early February and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed of the decision personally.
Although I cannot speculate on the outcome of the review, I assure my hon. Friend that the people of Sheppey will get their community hospital. The scheme is a high priority for the south-east region and I guarantee that public capital will be made available for the scheme if it is required. It is important for everyone to be confident that effective primary and community services are in place in Sheppey before the new hospital opens, and they do exist. Recent innovations include a nurse-led assessment centre operating from the leisure centres in Sittingbourne and Sheerness, enabling GP referrals for subsidised access for coronary heart disease patients; and recuperative care developments in partnership with social services in Sheerness, initially developing two, then three recuperative beds for short-term rehabilitation for elderly people who are unable to go straight home from hospital. The increase in practice and administrative staff in 25 per cent. of GP practices brings the lowest-staffed practices closer to the West Kent average; GPs are making good use of informal networks, with consultants visiting for out-patient clinics, which, for example, allows them to get specialist advice without making referrals.
In addition, considerable work has taken place over recent months to ensure that the health economy can cope this winter. Many of my hon. Friend's colleagues raised their concerns within the West Kent region about how that would be done, not just within the NHS but in the social services. I have met representatives of the various stakeholders in order to ensure that there is a comprehensive service. Judging by the feedback that we received, there is a tremendous commitment. The planning has paid off. However, that requires money and West Kent health authority received an extra £1 million, some of which was targeted at Sheppey residents, to help with the work. For example, four additional recuperative beds at Sheppey hospital will free up acute beds and there will be additional medical staffing at Sheppey to allow more dependent patients to be cared for in the community hospital. That includes additional staff-grade locum cover for annual and sick leave, increased clinical assistant hours from local GPs
306WH
to cover beds under the care of a consultant on a GP ward—including out-of-hours cover—and increased nursing on De Shurland rehabilitation ward to enable more dependent patients to be admitted.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns; it is only right that he and his constituents should question how local health services will be provided in future. The doubts about PFI schemes are legitimate. PFI's history as a solution to problems extends over 10 years, but it did not work under the Tory Administration. There was a reduction in the number of beds, and no work was done on intermediate care. We inherited a model of private and public finance working together but not making things work. We recognise that some of the underlying structural trends in the NHS were wrong, which increased delay. We must get it right.
The Government are clearly committed to a publicly funded NHS, as my hon. Friend will see if he finds a moment to look at the NHS plan. Its interesting chapter on the funding of the NHS restates the Government's commitment that the NHS is a public funded service. We will not go down the route of private medical insurance or charge people for GP visits, but we will work with the private sector on capital investment because that is in the best interests of taxpayers and my hon. Friend's constituents.
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents are frustrated by the time that the project in Sheppey is taking, but we must get it right because I am sure that that package is right for the NHS. Although the proposed PFI scheme in Sheppey has undoubtedly caused anxiety, we will bring the matter to a swift conclusion. I well understand my hon. Friend's cynicism in saying that he has heard such things before, but I say confidently that if the consultation reveals that PFI or other projects are not the right option, we will find the public money to fund the project.
I hope that my hon. Friend will leave in the knowledge that his constituents will get a new community hospital and will receive high-quality health care and modern facilities, and that public funding will be made available if required. I was struck by the opening of his speech; displaying his usual way with words, he asked the Minister to minister to the people of Minster. He will no doubt be in touch with my private office to find a suitable slot in the diary. One reason why I am happy to accept his invitation is that it will give Ministers an opportunity to thank people in the NHS who have sometimes had to work in conditions that are less than perfect, but who always put patients' interests first. I hope that they agree that we in the Government also do that.
I am delighted that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions seems to be tackling the issue of the bridge so that those people on the island who, as my hon. Friend powerfully illustrated, have not been connected will have easier access. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that something is happening in the interests of his constituents, and that the right thing is being done.

Defence Medical Services
12.58 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: This short debate allows me to raise an issue in which I have long taken an interest in the House. I spoke on defence medical services when we had six military hospitals. I expressed concern and alarm when, under the previous Government, that number was reduced to three, as I did when "Defence Cost Study 15" decided that there should be only one military hospital, the Royal Hospital Haslar in my constituency.
I wish now to articulate the anger and distress caused not just in my constituency and the locality but to all who have an interest in defence medical services and in defence generally by the fact that the Government chose to announce that the Royal Hospital Haslar would close, as they originally said, not before 2002. That crass and incompetent decision had to be reversed almost immediately when the Government realised that it would be impossible to close the hospital without finding alternative medical care in the locality, and that the proposed expansion—through a PFI bid—of the Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham could not be completed in less than five to seven years.
For those reasons, almost immediately after the initial statement that Haslar would not close before 2002, an announcement had to be made that it would stay open for five to seven years. That original decision caused such consternation that almost irreparable damage has been done to defence medical services—I say "almost" because I believe that there is a way ahead and I hope that the Minister will take note of it.
This is not a simple plea against a hospital closure or for hospital development. I listened to the end of the debate that was instituted by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), talking about his local hospital. Haslar is the local hospital in my constituency. This is a more important, national issue, because Haslar is a military hospital. As one would expect, the United States has many military hospitals. France has 15, but the United Kingdom has only one, which is Haslar. It was selected under "Defence Cost Study 15" to be the single military hospital. The plan was never fully implemented. It was to expand Haslar from 180 beds to 350 or 320. If it had been implemented, we would have had strong medical services. It was not implemented, and the number of beds remains at about 180. As a result, a great deal of damage has been done to defence medical services and to medical care in the locality.
The special feature of Haslar is that the throughput of patients, to provide sufficient throughput for the practice of doctors and nurses and other medical staff, needs to be both civilian and military. To that extent, Haslar is unique. Military staff have front-line duties that may need priority from time to time; to that extent, too, Haslar is unique. The medical staff who are training and practising there must be accredited by the royal colleges, who have strict rules about the amount of training that is required of trainee doctors and the maintenance of training by existing doctors. That imposes a breadth of experience and training on all at Haslar and in other hospitals and, to some extent, a requirement for split-site working to which the royal
308WH
colleges have been reluctant to agree. They are now content with the manner in which Haslar is operating, but it was always going to be difficult to maintain a military hospital.
If there is a cadre—a corps—of individuals whose first responsibility is in the front line of battle and they are taken from their civilian milieu, it will obviously be necessary to have a reserve somewhere in the United Kingdom. We knew that it would be difficult to cope with defence medical services. There is no satisfactory accountant's answer, no cost-efficient response: we must have a reserve of doctors and nurses.
Those who saw the decision in "Defence Cost Study 15" in 1995 that the Royal Air Force hospital at Wroughton and the Cambridge hospital at Aldershot were to be closed, may reluctantly have decided that their future careers lay in the Gosport area of south Hampshire. When they, their families and children moved to south Hampshire, although they may have been reluctant initially, they found it an agreeable place to live and would not willingly move again to Birmingham. The Government's proposal to establish a centre for defence medicine in Birmingham will not be popular. The Government—who have no Defence Minister who has served in the armed forces—have misread the motivation of defence medical services.
Recruitment has turned up a little in the past year or two. That is not surprising, because the armed forces give excellent training, to trainee doctors and good pay during training; the way of life is attractive and the experience varied and exciting. One can imagine why many younger people find it attractive to join defence medical services for their training during their first 10 or 15 years of medical experience. When fully qualified, however—at consultant level—their motivation is different. They no longer wish to be deployed at short notice to the Falkland islands or to Kosovo and on return to be told that they are going back again. No; they need to be retained by a different motivation. They want greater stability, they want to be sure that their career plans are working their way through and they want to be fully and sensibly employed for the skill that they have. If, as is happening now, they are more frequently deployed overseas because of shortages, that will make them less willing to remain in the armed forces. They will not be retained by the Ministry of Defence hospital units.
These units, previously at Derriford, Frimley and Peterborough—now at Northallerton—do provide the medical experience and the training that doctors require. I would not fault them on that. What they do not provide is the ethos, the services' camaraderie—the reasons why people join defence medical services rather than qualify in the national health service as civilians.
I have raised this issue previously with Ministers and responsible individuals in the MOD and they say that they are satisfied with MOD hospital units. They must be talking to people other than those whom the Select Committee on Defence talked to when it visited Frimley and Peterborough. During our visits we were told, by all those to whom we spoke—every single service man and woman—that the MOD hospital units were

309WH
satisfactory, in their way, and that they were providing a level of medical experience but that it was "not what we had joined for".
Mr. Robert Key indicated assent.
Mr. Viggers: I see that my hon. Friend agrees with that point. He has visited MOD hospital units and has visited the Royal Hospital Haslar with me, and has taken a keen interest in the subject. I am grateful to him for his interest, and for the fact that he is present to show support for my submission today.
If doctors are not going to be retained by the MOD hospital units, are they going to be retained through the attractions of the centre for defence medicine at Birmingham? There were high hopes for the centre for defence medicine; we thought that it would provide the clear, leading light to guide medical defence services.
Then we discovered that initially, the centre for defence medicine would he a ward of 32 beds. That will not be the compass that will lead defence medical services out of its present difficulties. I recognise that the centre for defence medicine, as it is based in the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust, is intended to provide an academic link to the defence medical services and give them an intellectual edge—that is attractive. A 32-bed unit will not be an incentive for individual consultants to remain in defence medical services. They will not be retained by the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust.
What is happening in defence medical services at the moment? A week ago, the permanent under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence appeared before the Select Committee on Defence. He admitted that defence medical services were arguably the area of greatest concern to the MOD at the moment—as they should be. I am certain that when the Minister responds to this speech, he will say that recruitment is going better than it has for a few years. That is true for junior doctors, but the crucial question is, how many deployable consultants are there in the key areas? The key areas, which the services must excel at if they are to have proper medical cover, are anaesthesia, general medicine and general and orthopaedic surgery.
What are the numbers? The requirement for anaesthetists is 120 and the MOD has 29: a 76 per cent. shortfall. The requirement for general physicians is 51. We have 19: a 45 per cent. shortfall. The requirement for general surgeons is 44. We have 18: a 52 per cent. shortfall. The requirement for orthopaedic surgeons is 28. We have 8: a 71 per cent. shortfall.
There are even worse statistics. For accident and emergency, which one might think is one of the prime requirements for the Ministry of Defence armed forces, the requirement is for 23 consultants, and we have three: a shortfall of 87 per cent. The situation is critical, facing collapse. What is it doing to those serving in the armed forces?
We have more deeply worrying numbers. The number of personnel in the Army who are downgraded for more than a month is 9,144, which is 9.5 per cent. of establishment. The Army is of course also 5,000 under strength, so it is 14,000 people short of full fitness. The comparable figures for medically downgraded personnel in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are around 2,500 and 3,796 respectively.
310WH
Those are critical figures, and the Minister cannot be complacent. He cannot say, in the face of such a shortfall of doctors and nurses, and the danger to the armed forces' health, that there is no problem that he should address. Perhaps as a result of a parliamentary question that I tabled about the fitness of service personnel, there seems to have been a desperate attempt to rectify the situation by sending service men to private hospitals. In response, the Minister told me that he could not give details of those arrangements, as they are commercially confidential. If he cannot tell me anything about the arrangements, I will tell him.
The Ministry of Defence is being charged £95 for a consultation at a private hospital, and if that leads to an operation, the Ministry buys that specific item without medical back-up. In other words, if a soldier, sailor or airman goes to a consultation, the doctor advises tonsillectomy and the operation is authorised in a private hospital, the patient will of course get the tonsillectomy and come out. There is no aftercare or general care through the private arrangements that have been made by the Ministry of Defence. Should anything go wrong, the patient will have to have aftercare elsewhere.
Let me take an example. A service man had a varicose veins operation in a private hospital that went wrong. There was no follow-up and he developed sepsis and pulmonary emboli. He had to be admitted to Haslar hospital as an in-patient. There are other examples. Patients have been sent privately for magnetic resonance imaging scans, for ear, nose and throat surgery and for general surgery, when in each of those cases there is virtually no waiting time at Haslar hospital and it would have been possible to perform the operations there. Obviously, all is not well.
I have said little about the civilian need for Haslar hospital, and I am conscious that the Minister is responsible for the Ministry of Defence medical services, not civilian medical care. However, I will say that Gosport, although a peninsula with a tidal flow of traffic, is fully accessible for most of the day, and Haslar is available to those outside the Gosport peninsula. It is intended that the Queen Alexandra hospital will be rebuilt, as I mentioned, under a private finance initiative. However, the Queen Alexandra hospital has had problems recently with its sterilisation plant and for some weeks it was not possible to carry out cold surgery there at all. It has also had management problems. It has unfortunately lost its chief executive and its chairman in the last year.
Much has been done at Haslar to rectify the situation from a civilian and a military point of view. There is at Haslar an accident treatment centre, which seems to be working well. The health authority has agreed a plan whereby the number of out-patients seen at Haslar will be increased from 55,000 to 60,000 a year. May I put it to the Minister that we have a way ahead? I recognise that the Ministry of Defence has signed an agreement with Birmingham to create a centre for defence medicine at the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust. That is a mouse of an agreement, providing only 32 beds, but I would be seeking to push water uphill if I tried to persuade the Minister to go back on that agreement, which I believe is not being put in hand.

311WH
A contract has been signed between the Ministry of Defence and the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust to provide a Ministry of Defence hospital unit in south Hampshire. It is needed because of the large number of service personnel in that area.
However, the private finance initiative at Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham is not likely to go ahead with the military element. There are already problems with the PFI bid at the hospital. There are also planning issues, which may be insuperable. There will certainly be considerable hostility from the local authority over the full PFI bid if it includes the military element. I have already mentioned the management issues and problems at the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust and Queen Alexandra hospital.
I maintain that the only way to retain defence medical staff is to provide them with a focus of service interest. They will need that if they are to get the two 200-bed hospital ships in due course. Where better to place that massive commitment—which would imply a significant swing in favour of ship-provided hospital care—and moor those hospital ships than the Portsmouth area? From where should they be supported but. Haslar?
I press the Minister to say that he would not object to the MOD hospital unit's remaining at Haslar after the national health service takes over management responsibility for clinical services on 2 April 2001. There is no other way to provide the framework for the defence medical services—their spirit, loyalty, spiritual home and centre. The MODHUs will not provide it; nor will Birmingham. Without it, the decline in the number of doctors and nurses will continue. It would take 25 years to get the defence medical services in proper order again. I said to a senior individual who is responsible in this area that it would take 25 years to rectify the damage, and he smiled thinly and said, "Well, perhaps 15." This is a serious problem, and I urge the Minister to take note of it and respond.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate on the important subject of defence medical services. As the House recognises, he continues to take a close interest in defence medical matters. He has been particularly assiduous in pressing the interests of his constituents, who are concerned about our plans to close the Royal Hospital Haslar.
I reiterate my previous assurances that Haslar will not close until our new Ministry of Defence hospital unit opens at the Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham. The Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust plans to develop that hospital on a private finance initiative basis. The timing of the final closure of Haslar and the opening of the new MOD hospital unit therefore depends on the progress made on the redevelopment project. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are working closely with both local and central NHS authorities to ensure the appropriate provision of health care services in the Gosport area during the transition to the new arrangements.
Following a visit to the Haslar hospital at Gosport earlier this year, I said that we would certainly be sympathetic to discussions held with a view to the
312WH
long-term provision of care within the Gosport peninsula, although not based on the full provision at Haslar, which, if the MOD hospital unit goes ahead, will be moved to Cosham. I am certainly sympathetic to the needs of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In the long term, we try to do what we can within the constraints on us. I hope that he has been assured that the closure of Haslar does depend on the opening of the new unit; it will not take place in its absence in the short term. I can guarantee that today. The two are interdependent and will remain so.
I am pleased to say that our plans for close integration with the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust are progressing satisfactorily. As part of the plans, the trust will take over the management of clinical services on 1 April this year. The arrangements will be similar to those in our existing Ministry of Defence hospital units, with military personnel integrated with NHS staff. However, we will remain responsible for the infrastructure and support of the Haslar site. As in any other MODHU, the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust will pay my Department for service personnel employed in the trust, and we will in turn pay the trust for treating service patients.
We have also reached agreement with the Department of Health on the transfer of funding to compensate for the costs that the health authority will incur during the transitional period for NHS patients who were hitherto treated at Haslar at no cost.
The hon. Member for Gosport expressed concern that current manpower shortages in the defence medical services will affect our ability to meet staffing commitments at Haslar and at the new centre for defence medicine that we are establishing in Birmingham. I can assure him that manpower plans for that centre take account of other medical manpower commitments, and any moves of staff from Haslar will occur only on a carefully planned basis. Our plans for the centre also assume a gradual growth over a number of years in which we expect overall staff levels in the defence medical services to improve. He referred to the provision of a ward it Birmingham as part of a Ministry of Defence hospital unit. In the long term, I anticipate that unit growing substantially. The initial provision is just that: a means of getting the unit started and having our own particular unit attached to the hospital in Birmingham. Over seven to 10 years, the MODHU component in Birmingham would increase in line with the number of staff.
The hon. Member for Gosport rightly expressed concern about the current personnel shortages, to which I have frequently referred in debates over the past year. He doubts our ability to achieve improvements. With hindsight, the cuts made during "Defence Cost Study 15" were obviously too severe, and morale in the defence medical services undoubtedly suffered as a consequence. When consultants are lost, it takes a long time to train replacements. We have given a high priority to trying to restore the operational capability of the defence medical services. The strategic defence review provided for extra money over the four years to 2002 for additional medical manpower and equipment. Our plans for the procurement of medical equipment are on target. Making good manpower shortfalls is much more difficult, because it takes time to train the personnel—eight to 10 years for a doctor to qualify as a consultant.

313WH
Nevertheless, I can say with confidence that manning levels are stabilising, and overall numbers have increased by 74 between June 1999 and July 2000. Although that figure is out of date, medical staff tell me that the trend is encouraging.
Levels of recruitment into training are satisfactory. The number of medical cadetships and nurse training places has increased, and we are making progress in meeting the higher figures. The medium to long-term outlook is happier than at this time last year. However, to make a significant impact on manning levels in the short term, we need to recruit more direct-entry, qualified medical personnel, particularly doctors. Recruitment of such personnel has proved difficult in the past, and we are undertaking a considerable amount of work to identify and deal with the barriers that have previously limited our success in that area. We shall shortly be able to put in place arrangements that will encourage already trained and qualified staff to join the defence medical services, and so contribute directly and quickly to easing manning pressures. I shall keep the hon. Member for Gosport and the House informed of progress in that area.
We also recognise the need to improve the retention of experienced medical personnel if we are to achieve a significant improvement in manning levels. We are still losing more people than we would wish through early retirement, although the situation is better than a few years ago. We are, therefore, also undertaking work on a range of measures to improve the retention of staff.
The centre for defence medicine will play an important part in attracting and retaining personnel in the defence medical services. I am pleased to say that this project, which is a core element of our strategy for the defence medical services and which will include academic, teaching and clinical roles, is going very well. We are on track to open the centre formally on 2 April. Many defence medical personnel have shown a keen interest in serving at the centre. The first group were posted there last September. They have been warmly welcomed by their civilian colleagues, and are enjoying working there. By the time of the formal opening on 2 April, some 80 of our people will be serving at the centre, with one ward managed exclusively by military personnel. The centre will then, as I said, build up progressively, especially in its academic and teaching roles, to its full strength over a period of five to 10 years. I believe that it offers exciting prospects as a professional focus for the defence medical services and a facility for promoting excellence in military medicine.
The hon. Member for Gosport rightly referred to the importance of fostering a military ethos among defence medical services personnel and the part that that plays in sustaining high morale in the service. It is especially important that those serving at MODHUs should have access to military facilities and be able to participate in military training and exercises. That also applies to those who will be serving at the centre for defence medicine. I assure him that every effort is made to ensure that personnel at our units are released for military training, exercises and adventurous training whenever possible and that they have access to facilities at local military units, all of which helps to foster a military ethos.

314WH
We are working on plans for the development of separate domestic accommodation for military personnel at the new MODHU in Portsmouth, and at the centre for defence medicine. That accommodation will include the usual service mess facilities, which will help military personnel maintain their distinctive identity.
Having visited Derriford and Northallerton in the past six to eight months, my experience, having spoken to medical colleagues about their experiences, is different from that of the hon. Member for Gosport. There is no doubt that teething troubles were experienced when the units were first set up, but I believe that those troubles have been largely overcome. Certainly at Northallerton, the experience gained from the units set up earlier seems to have paid dividends, and staff seem to have adjusted quickly to conditions there, which differ from the conditions where they were formerly. However, we shall keep a close eye on the matter, because it is important to maintain high morale and a military ethos among the staff serving there.
The hon. Member for Gosport also said that, as a result of manpower shortages in the defence medical services, service patients are now waiting longer for treatment. He referred to two aspects; the number of medically downgraded personnel and our use of private facilities in trying to reduce treatment. I am a wee bit sorry to be criticised for taking an initiative that I thought would help. Not many options are available in the short term to make dramatic inroads on waiting lists, and I believe that we have shown an imaginative attitude towards the problem. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring any individual cases to my attention, I promise him that they will be carefully investigated to find out whether more can be done than is being done at present.
Although we are worried about the downgrading of personnel, it covers a wide range of circumstances. Many—indeed most—such personnel can be deployed on military operations, although not necessarily in the front line. A considerable amount of work is being done to improve our understanding of the cause of downgrading and on the action that can be taken to ameliorate the circumstances. Numbers awaiting medical treatment are only part of the problem. They include personnel who are permanently medically downgraded and have been retained in the armed forces with limited employability because we feel an obligation to people who have given us sterling service in the past.
I am happy to say, in passing, that I have experienced at first hand what is being done in Edinburgh for recruits who become injured. Many acute downgradings are due to skeletal injuries sustained during training. I am cautious about what I say, because it is only too easy to make dramatic claims for medical advances that are not borne out in the long term. However, the initial impression seems to be that the extent of medical downgrading and the length of time for which people are downgraded are dramatically reduced through early interventions such as intensive physiotherapy and access to consultant treatment. I hope that we shall be able to generalise on that experience in the rest of the services over the next year or two to ensure that people who suffer injuries to their knees, ankles or backs return to service as quickly as possible.

315WH
The debate has shown once again the importance that hon. Members, and in particular the hon. Member for Gosport, rightly attach to the defence medical services. Before concluding, I reiterate the Government's commitment to restoring the capability of such services. It is essential that the armed forces have the level of medical support that they need on deployed operations. Despite the current manpower shortages, defence medical services continue to meet their operational commitments. Those whom I have met have impressed me with their motivation and professionalism; that applies to reservists, as well as full-time staff. Morale is generally good, although people are anxious about numbers, just as we are. Personnel are beginning to see that there are grounds for optimism about the future of the defence medical services.
The closure of military hospitals over the past decade has been a source of disappointment.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Hospital Services (Bradford)
1.30 pm
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate such an important issue. Shipley, my constituency, is one of five in the Bradford district. There are no general hospitals within its boundaries, but it is served by Bradford royal infirmary and St. Luke's, based in the city, and by Airedale general hospital in Steeton near Keighley.
Of the five Members of Parliament for Bradford, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) unfortunately cannot be here today, although I understand that she will shortly visit Airedale hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) has taken a long interest in the Bradford royal infirmary site, which is in his constituency. I know that he looks forward to the Minister's visit in the near future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who sits beside me here as a Whip, is prevented from speaking in the debate. However, I assure the world at large that he strongly supports hospital services in the district and takes a close and long-standing interest in new investment and developments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) will say a few words later.
Nearly half a million people reside in the Bradford district. The area ranges from relatively well-off communities in the commuter belt to a fairly large area of deprived neighbourhoods with deep-rooted poverty and poor health. Bradford is recognised as the most deprived health authority area in the whole of northern Yorkshire, where more than one third of the population is classed as deprived. Patients, especially those from black and Asian communities, suffer high rates of heart disease, strokes and diabetes.
There are several good facilities in the area, but they need to be improved. St. Luke's hospital typifies the most pressing difficulties that we have in the national health service locally. Most of its site is contained in a series of unconnected 19th-century blocks, between which patients and equipment must be transferred in the open air between buildings in all weather. That is obviously unsuitable for the 20th century, never mind the 21st century. Most of the Bradford royal infirmary buildings are 1930s blocks built in the old Nightingale ward tradition, as open wards. Although the hospital staff do sterling work given the conditions, there are great needs at those hospitals.
Despite those challenges, I am proud of the good NHS systems in Bradford. For example, South and West Bradford primary care group was PCG of the year in 1999. Bradford also won health authority of the year in 2000, an award given by The Health Service Journal. Bradford has received various NHS beacon awards for primary care and hospital care, and Bradford hospitals have won several other awards, including one for cancer care at Bradford royal infirmary.
The overall number of people in the Bradford district waiting for admissions between September 1998 and December 2000 has fallen by 20 per cent. In that same time, the figure of more than 500 people waiting for more than 12 months has been reduced to zero. We have

317WH
successfully implemented winter plans; there have been no bed closures and there has been no adverse impact on casualty. We have some of the lowest rates of delay from discharge in the region, so there has been little bed blocking. There is, too, an increasingly healthy ethos among the NHS staff at Bradford; management is devolving decisions and letting go, allowing frontline staff to make decisions and to make a real difference.
I wanted to set the scene about hospital and health provision in the district, but I also wanted to talk about some of the recent advances that have taken place in the district. A number of those advances are unsung—they have had very little publicity or coverage—but I am immensely proud that, step by step, some investment has been applied and is making a difference. At the Bradford royal infirmary and at St. Luke's, there are a number of improvements.
The Bradford royal infirmary has a brand new accident and emergency department to treat a large number of patients—approximately 100,000 a year. That department is now four times the size of the former cramped facility. A year ago, I spent a Friday evening, up until midnight—one of the peak periods—in the old accident and emergency department, and it was like something from a 19th-century novel. To now have this much larger, better-equipped facility with an improved triage, a separate children's facility, a nine-bay resuscitation unit and improved security for staff makes a wonderful difference for the whole of the district.
This year, the hospital will have a £1 million cardiac catheter laboratory, aimed at more than doubling the number of angiograms that can be performed annually, from 400 to 1000. That will make a huge difference, and is thanks to some of the capital investment. I recently visited the new intensive care beds, which have been operational since December. There are now eight intensive care beds, supplemented by some new high-dependency beds, all of which increase the capacity to serve that large community.
The hospital has a new operating theatre in the ear, nose and throat block, helping to reduce waiting lists. An extra ophthalmologist has been employed to tackle cataract problems, among other ailments, and £1 million has now been approved for the centralisation of paediatric services. More than £500,000 has been made available to improve the out-patient facility at St. Luke's hospital. These are areas where we have great problems in terms of the buildings and services, so step by step, some of the more recent investment has begun to make a difference.
However, it would be remiss of me to fail to mention another great hospital in my district; Airedale general hospital, where I was born in 1972. The hospital was recently ranked as having the seventh-lowest mortality rate in the county on a like-for-like basis without deprivation indices. This is a great sign that the staff and that facility are not only extremely popular locally, but extremely effective. I understand that just this morning the hospital opened the newly refurbished accident and emergency department, where £3330,000 has been invested in new X-ray equipment and modern resuscitation facilities. It is coincidentally fortuitous that we are having this debate today to recognise that milestone being passed.
318WH
Also at Airedale, £500,000 was invested in upgrading the admissions and assessment ward that opened at the beginning of December 2000. There was an investment of £750,000 on angiography and mammography X-ray facilities, with extra high-dependency beds installed.
The list is much longer, and I could not possibly cover some of the extra advances that have taken place in the short time that we have for the debate. However, more investment is needed and there is much more to do. The reason for today's debate is to look at how we have been benefiting from new investment, how—before we achieve a truly modern NHS of the highest calibre—we plan for the future, and how we put our foot on the accelerator in terms of investment and hopefully bid for some even better, more radical advances. Bradford has embraced the NHS plan and we are keen to see the benefits of the proposed modernisation programme that it describes. Bradford, as much as anywhere, needs 21st-century buildings and equipment. The main hospital buildings at Bradford royal infirmary are antiquated and inappropriate for today's needs; there is a compelling and urgent case for massive new investment in Bradford's health services to bring acute services into the 21st century.
We want to be in the list of nationally approved new district general hospitals. The district's capital investment programme is being considered as an integrated programme and all the local agencies support it. A great partnership effort went into producing the strategic outline case submitted by the health service stakeholders in the district. It is ambitious and farsighted, but immensely achievable and affordable with the available new moneys.
The bid is for £70 million of new-build capital investment at the Bradford royal infirmary site and £30 million refurbishment works in addition. The aim is to preserve the best elements of the current Bradford royal infirmary facilities and add on new elements; for example, a new series of operating theatres, a radiology suite, short-stay and day-case units and a consolidated women's hospital at one site.
St. Luke's hospital would become the focus for rehabilitation and post-acute care and be the main outpatients centre. BRI would be the base for all acute work, from emergencies to elective in-patient activities. That would significantly reduce Bradford's split-site problems and help to reduce waiting times and waiting lists. The proposal would improve the working environment for staff and, for the first time, there may be health services in our district that are designed around the patient's needs, and not around the geography and typography of the site and the difficulties of getting round the city.
It is an exciting vision for Bradford district health care in the 21st century, which can come about only because of the extra priority given to investment. Public services are not seen as something that must be scaled down and cut back; there is a belief that the NHS is vital. Our constituents will get what they want: a growth in services and in investment. I know that we have had a lot of Government money, but I strongly hope that the Minister will consider the bid favourably and make the extra investment that we want in the future.
1.42 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) for securing the debate and the Minister for his commitment to Bradford. We appreciate the regular cheques that arrive; the current one just happens to be slightly larger than the others. We are arranging a party for the Minister next week.
I want to talk about the issues arising from the ageing condition of the Bradford hospitals and the split-site operation. There is a health community in Bradford; the partnerships between hospital trusts, primary care trusts, community health trusts and social services are a model for the health service nationally. They form a partnership of equals, which works exceptionally well.
There is a need to develop those links and to divest many more services from the hospitals. The problem is that because of the state and age of the buildings, many of the revenue costs—perhaps as much as several millions of pounds—are tied up in those decrepit buildings. With bright, modern facilities, money could be released into patient care and into preventative work, an issue about which I am very concerned.
As the Minister knows, there is a health action zone in Bradford, which has been outstandingly successful in treating diabetes. A stack of other innovative proposals is waiting to be developed, but people are reluctant to ask the Government for even more money than the bounteous sums that we are already getting. However, by improving the fabric of the district hospitals, millions of pounds could be released to develop the services.
It is virtually impossible to maintain the buildings to acceptable standards of cleanliness. I speak from personal experience because, a few years ago, my wife had secondary and third infections following an operation. They resulted from poor standards of cleanliness. I mean no disrespect to the cleaners, who do their best and are still suffering from the disastrous compulsory competitive tendering arrangements introduced by the previous Government. Their job is difficult because of the physical structure, appearance, style and texture of the buildings. An above average number of people have to come back to do the job again. There is dead money that nobody wants to spend, which could be invested to develop other services.
I have a particular interest in health concerns among the ethnic minority community. Life style, diet, ignorance and language barriers can all be a problem. Exciting proposals have been made to develop services at the community level rather than institution-based services. Once again, the resource element is holding us back. We do not need any more money; we can release it from the additional costs that we are incurring by maintaining these ancient buildings.
I hope that the Minister will be able to make some pleasing sounds this afternoon. I know of his commitment to Bradford and I enjoyed his visit last year. I hope to see him there again in future—hopefully to open the brand new hospital that I am sure he wants to promise us today.
1.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on his success in
320WH
securing the debate. I pay a personal tribute to his work in attempting to improve the national health service in his constituency. He has always spoken up for the NHS in Shipley and I know that he will continue to do so well into the future. Along with all my hon. Friends who represent Bradford, I want NHS services to continue to develop in that city. Under this Government, they will.
We have increased resources for Bradford year on year. This year, Bradford health authority received a cash increase on its budget of more than £30 million—6.7 per cent. over and above inflation, or a 9.3 per cent. increase in cash terms. Next year, there will be a real-terms increase of 6 per cent.—more than £27 million in cash terms.
The benefits of those extra resources can be seen in the number of patients treated. Last year, 5.7 per cent. more patients were seen in Bradford than in the previous year. Nationally, waiting lists have come down from the record levels inherited from the previous Government. Not only are fewer people waiting in Bradford, but those who do wait do not have to spend as long on the list. My hon. Friend referred to the progress made in that respect.
The number of patients treated is not the only important factor. As my hon. Friend said, we must also ensure that we have the most up-to-date facilities to treat patients. Bradford has seen significant new investment. Nationally, £115 million has been spent to modernise every accident and emergency department in England that needs it. The accident and emergency department of the Bradford royal infirmary has been modernised at a cost of £5 million. That development, which was completed in October, houses one of the most modern and technologically advanced accident and emergency facilities in the country.
The new unit is a dramatic improvement on the original inadequate facilities. We are gradually sweeping away old and outdated Victorian buildings and replacing them with an NHS fit for the new century. New purpose-built facilities will enable the hospital to assess patients much more quickly, minimise their wait and care for them in a more private and dignified environment.
The superb facility includes a dedicated children's accident and emergency department that provides separate waiting areas, with facilities geared more towards the needs of young people. In addition, the trust has received a further £700,000 from this year's modernisation fund further to improve and modernise its services. That has been spent on new nurse-led clinics, the introduction of booked admissions to allow earlier and more convenient hospital appointments for patients and studying how services can be better delivered for patients in primary care.
In Bradford district, we have invested more than £130 million to equip 130 general practitioners to provide secondary care. That has meant that a total of 20,605 non-hospital out-patient consultations will be undertaken by GPs this year in Bradford, as well as 11,500 procedures that would otherwise have been carried out in secondary care—a better service for patients that frees up hospital time.
We have also provided the Airedale trust with more than £700,000 from the modernisation fund for equipment and building alterations aimed at further

321WH
reducing waiting times and providing additional equipment. Bradford trust has been given new and replacement trailers and X-ray equipment for the Pennine breast-screening programme from the new opportunities fund for cancer services. The Airedale trust, to which my hon. Friend was right to draw our attention, is proceeding with a £3 million procurement to replace radiological equipment.
I am aware that time is limited, but I shall quickly mention a number of other important investments that have taken place in Bradford. An additional £500,000 is to be provided to Bradford health authority to tackle coronary heart disease and my hon. Friend referred to the progress that we are making there. A further £500,000 is to provide 120 extra intermediate care beds, to improve the health and social care of older people. There will be £300,000 from the modernisation fund to enhance security measures for the accident and emergency department. We have made available two additional critical care beds for Bradford hospital and two high dependency beds for Airedale hospital, which have certainly improved care this winter.
Money and equipment is, of course, welcome, but the NHS also needs more doctors and nurses to provide the additional services that patients need. The past three years have seen an additional 340 nurses, midwives and health visitors in Bradford—an increase of nearly 15 per cent. that has been mirrored by increases in medical and dental staff at the hospitals. Significant new investment has taken place, but we can only deliver a more modern and dependable NHS through doctors and nurses delivering services that are better organised around patient's needs. I am pleased that Bradford has delivered on that too.
I was delighted to hear that The Health Service Journal awarded its health authority of the year accolade to Bradford health authority this year. As my hon. Friend is aware, these things do not happen by accident. In Bradford, much imaginative and pioneering work is being done to improve services to patients. My hon. Friend reminded us of my visit to Bradford last year, where some fantastic things are being done by people working in the NHS and their partners in local authorities to improve the health and social care needs of the local population.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that Bradford has been in the vanguard of establishing new primary care trusts—I think some of the first in the country were set up in his area. That has provided the freedom for local services to modernise much faster than might otherwise have been the case. For example, the Airedale primary care trust is building new primary care surgeries and using new technology to pioneer a shared patient information system.
Bradford City—not the football club, but the primary care trust—has managed to take on additional practice staff and work with partners on a new, assertive outreach mental health team. I was pleased to meet the team last year and find out how they were improving services for people with mental health problems in the city.
Bradford South and West primary care trust has used extensive patient involvement to improve services for patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer and mental health problems. North Bradford primary
322WH
care trust has been impressive in its imaginative approach to reducing waiting lists and improving access to local services.
Those improvements and successes have been made against a backdrop of a population of almost 500,000, in a district with a wide range of social, geographical, ethnic and health variations. As my hon. Friend said, Bradford is the eighth most deprived district in Britain and one in which there have been wide inequalities in its health experience for many years—a factor that led to the district becoming one of the first health action zones to be established in England in April 1998.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) said, Bradford health action zone continues to receive significant funding to tackle the major health problems in Bradford—this year, we allocated to Bradford more than £4.7 million. The focus has been on diabetes, as my hon. Friend said, as well as rehabilitation, improving health for minority ethnic groups and services in the inner city.
The health action zone continues to make significant progress in tackling inequalities and modernising services to improve health in the most deprived areas of the city. Health action zone initiatives, for example, ensured continuity of discharge arrangements through last winter and maintained waiting times despite increased admissions into hospital.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bradford, North said, we have recently received a strategic outline case to invest more than £100 million in new acute services in Bradford. The Bradford hospitals NHS trust proposes to create a new hospital facility on the Bradford royal infirmary site to treat acute and emergency patients, as well as a post-acute rehabilitative and out-patient facility at St. Luke's hospital. That will permit the introduction of a patient-focused model of care to enable all acute in-patient activity to be undertaken on one site, and the essential re-engineering of clinical services. It involves a combination of substantial new build on both sites, with major refurbishment of existing 1930s accommodation on the Bradford royal infirmary site and demolition of the Victorian accommodation at St. Luke's hospital. The trust has submitted a strong and well-made case for that re-development. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is being actively considered by the Department of Health and we expect a decision in the next few weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will want to join me today in thanking everyone who works in the NHS and the Bradford district for their tremendous work, day in and day out. We are all committed to providing first-class treatment for every patient. We are replacing the old Victorian hospitals and mindsets and replacing them with a new, vibrant and modern national health service of which we can all be truly proud.
The NHS plan sets out our vision for the future of the health service. The money that we have put into the service in Bradford and the dedication of the staff in the city will ensure that the vision that we all share—all hon. Members who represent Bradford and the Government—will become a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Review Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has expressed his views about the Criminal Justice Review Group's recommendations on judicial appointments; [144664]

  (2) if the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has expressed his views about the merit of recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Review Group. [144665]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland did express views on the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review Group. It is usual policy that views expressed by individuals in consultation exercises are treated in confidence, unless the individual wishes otherwise.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has communicated with members of the Criminal Justice Review Group; [144663]

  (2) if the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland responded to the request for consultation made by the Criminal Justice Review Group. [144662]

  Mr. Lock
  I can confirm that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland responded to the Criminal Justice Review Group's consultations and met members of the Group as part of its consultation exercise.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal (North-east)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she plans to set up an immigration appeal tribunal in the North East Government Office for the Region. [146386]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans for the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to sit in the north-east, but the Tribunal is investigating the potential for using video conferencing so that parties are not put to the expense and inconvenience of travelling long distances.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146594]
  576W
  Jane Kennedy
  Spending by the Department on market and opinion research on policy issues for 1999–2000 was £161,004. Information so far available for spending in 2000–01 gives a total of £39,848. Figures for earlier years are not readily available. The individual projects and their cost are shown in the table.

  In addition, in 2000–01 the Department has provided funding for the Review of Tribunals being undertaken by Sir Andrew Leggatt to research and evaluate the views and experiences of recent applicants to a tribunal at a cost of £24,375.

  Projects undertaken

  £

  1999–2000

  Provision of Information Meetings: market research findings

  30,000

  Community Legal Service: strategy development research

  41,854

  Community Legal Service: quality market and brand identity evaluation

  49,150

  Total

  161,004

  2000–01

  Office for National Statistics Omnibus Module: non-pecuniary loss

  2,336

  Factors affecting the decision to apply for Silk and judicial office

  9,652

  The effects on magistrates of learning that the defendant has a previous conviction

  27,860

  Total

  39,848

DEFENCE

  Challenger II Transporters
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contract will be awarded in respect of the new transporters for the Challenger II tanks; and if he will make a statement. [147410]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has selected FASTTRAX—a consortium led by Brown and Root Ltd. of Leatherhead, Surrey—to be the preferred bidder for a private-sector financed heavy equipment transporter service for the Army that will provide UK production, support and service employment opportunities for the 20 years of the contract. The service will be based upon vehicles provided by the Oshkosh Truck Corporation of Wisconsin, USA, and King Trailers of Market Harborough, Leicestershire.

  The Defence Procurement Agency will now conclude its negotiations with FASTTRAX with the aim of achieving financial close and contract award by the middle of the year. This is the first programme to seek a solution under the Government's private finance initiative for an operational combat support vehicle requirement and is also one where a significant proportion of the service will be delivered using sponsored reserves.

  The contract value is around £300 million and will create or sustain up to 200 jobs in UK companies and sponsored reserves service units.

  Road Transport Operations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date an amendment to Joint Services Publication 341
  577W
  (The Road Transport Operations Handbook) was issued requiring a certificate to be signed by a commanding officer when normal operating standards are to be exceeded; and how many such certificates have been issued in each month since that date. [146276]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amendment to Joint Services Publication 341 (Joint Service Road Transport Regulations) was issued in December 1999. This requires commanding officers to sign a certificate of waiver when authorising any change to maximum driving periods and minimum rest periods.

  Certificates are held at unit level for 12 months and are not recorded centrally. Information on the number of certificates issued each month since December 1999 could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to my previous reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 20 October 1999, Official Report, column 583.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements will be made for the availability and issue of the morning-after pill to female UK service personnel; and if he will make a statement; [146451]

  (2) how information about sexual health safety is communicated to UK service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [146452]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium rounds are routinely carried by Challenger tanks on operations and training exercises. [146899]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Depleted uranium rounds are not carried by Challenger tanks on exercise and are moved to a theatre of operations only if the circumstances suggest that they may be needed. For example, each Challenger 1 carried DU ammunition when deployed to the Gulf in 1990–01. DU ammunition is not currently held in the Balkans, but could be flown out at short notice should the situation warrant it.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the arrangements are for the storage and handling of depleted uranium ammunition in service with UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [146898]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Ministry of Defence places the utmost importance on the health and safety of all service and civilian employees. Accordingly, the Department maintains the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Act 1995 and associated legislation as minimum standards. Specifically, the MOD explosive storage and transport committee lays down the policy and standards for the storage and transportation of all conventional military explosives held by the UK MOD and this includes depleted uranium (DU) munitions. These standards are then enshrined as necessary in single service regulations and local depot procedures. The MOD would not consider 578W
  storing or handling munitions of any type until approved, satisfactory procedures were in place and, as such, they are a pre-requisite of acceptance. In the case of DU munitions, appropriate procedures have been in place since these munitions entered service and, as is common practice, they are routinely reviewed and updated as necessary. We have no evidence to suggest any inadequacy in our current procedures or arrangements for the storage and handling of DU munitions in service, nor of any safety-related incidents which give us cause for concern.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium ammunitions were(a) produced and (b) tested at Royal Ordnance, Chorley. [147050]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium ammunitions have neither been produced nor tested at Royal Ordnance, Chorley.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium-based ammunition is authorised for use at(a) the Tain Air Weapons Range and (b) the Cape Wrath Range by (i) UK forces and (ii) overseas forces; and if he will make a statement. [145909]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]Depleted Uranium (DU)-based ammunition is not authorised for use at Tain Air Weapons Range, or at Cape Wrath Range, by either UK forces or overseas forces.

  Hawk Aircraft Exports (India)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of his most recent discussions with the Indian Government about the sale to them of Hawk aircraft. [146745]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]During my recent visit to India, which was both productive and valuable, I was pleased to be able personally to assure the Indian Government of HMG's support for greater co-operation between UK and Indian defence companies. This includes BAE Systems' proposal to supply the Hawk advanced jet trainer aircraft to the Indian Government in conjunction with Indian Industry, on which the Indian Government have indicated that they intend to take a final decision shortly.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the influence of issues relating to the supply of American components to the Indian Government on Indian policy concerning purchase of Hawk aircraft; [146746]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the influence of issues relating to the supply of US originated components for the Sea King helicopter on Indian policy with reference to a purchase of BAE Hawk aircraft. [146747]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Indian policy on the purchase of Hawk aircraft is a matter for the Indian Government. All relevant issues are taken into account in assessing how to maximise UK Government support for the BAE Systems Hawk proposals.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reports that UNAMSIL peacekeepers will be deployed to the RUF-controlled areas of Sierra Leone. [146480]
  579W
  Mr. Hoon
  As part of the Abuja ceasefire, the RUF committed themselves to allow freedom of movement throughout the country. We urge them to implement this commitment. It is for the UN force Commander to decide how and when to deploy his forces.

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his Department and the incoming US Administration with regard to national missile defence. [146722]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]We discussed national missile defence regularly with the previous US Administration and expect to do so with the new US Administration.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) of 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 101W, regarding Porton Down, (a) what plans his Department has to write to hospitals and general practices in the UK to inform them of these arrangements and (b) who will analyse the data from the consultations at St. Thomas' Hospital. [146686]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department of Health sent an electronic message about the medical assessment programme for Porton Down volunteers to directors of public health in England on 21 November 2000. This message was then forwarded to general practitioners, chief executives of health authorities, chairs of primary care groups, primary care medical advisers, project managers/nurse leads in walk-in centres and leads at nurse-led personal medical services pilots. A copy of the message was also sent to the Library of the House and is available on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo3.htm. The Health departments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have disseminated this message to OPs and health board directors of public health within their area of responsibility.

  The Porton Down volunteers' medical assessment programme has only just started and it is therefore too early to consider the analysis of its data. The data about specific individuals' referral to the medical assessment programme will be medically confidential. However, it is planned to aggregate and anonymise the data to form a case series for analysis. Such data could, with volunteers' consent, be made available to independent researchers.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if service volunteers under the age of 18 years have taken part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, since 1971; and what analysis and research his Department has carried out into the ages of service volunteers who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [146648]

  Dr. Moonie
  The policy of the chemical and biological defence sector of DERA at Porton Down has always been to refuse any prospective participants of the service volunteer programme if they were proven to be under the age of 18. This policy has been published in Defence Council instructions dating from 1971 and in the later 580W
  1992 Army general and administrative instructions. Information on age limits was also included in information produced by Porton Down following the formalisation of their protocol systems in the 1980s.

  No formal analysis of the experimental records relating to the service volunteer programme has been undertaken to determine the ages of volunteers who have participated in the studies. However, there are some entries in the records which indicate that volunteers were returned to their units on the basis of their age being below an 18-year-old threshold.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional costs he anticipates arising from the geographical dislocation of the Meteorological Office from the European Meteorological Centre, following his decision to relocate the Meteorological Office to Exeter. [146768]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewing to Mr. Nick Hawkins, dated 24 January 2001:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the relocation of the Met Office. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met Office.
  You asked about the additional costs that will arise from the geographical dislocation of the Met Office from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) at Shinfield Park, Reading, following our decision to move to Exeter in 2003. These will be limited to increased travel and subsistence costs due to the greater distance between Exeter and ECMWF and additional costs associated with maintaining our telecommunications link. We estimate that this will amount to no more than £80K per annum, compared with overall net annual operating cost savings as a result of the move to Exeter of up to £5.0M.
  We recognise the importance of maintaining and strengthening the close working relationship we have with ECMWF. We will also wish to maintain and develop close links with many other organisations throughout the United Kingdom and around the World. With modern communications we are firmly of the view that such relationships can be achieved very well indeed from Exeter.
  There were many factors, both financial and non-financial, to consider in deciding the best location for our new operational and administrative headquarters. It was not an easy decision, but, overall, Exeter is the best choice for the Met Office, its customers and the UK more generally.

  Veterans Cell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the Veterans Cell in his Department. [146466]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's "Policy for People", outlined in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, highlighted the Department's commitment to place people at the heart of our plans. The Veterans' Advice Unit was established in October that year as an initiative resulting from this policy. Staffed by one Warrant Officer from each of the 3 Services, the unit provides a helpline where veterans and their dependants can seek guidance on how to obtain expert advice on matters which concern them. The unit has close links with other Government
  581W
  Departments and agencies, as well as with ex-service organisations. It plays an important part in helping us to gauge the views of veterans and to understand the problems they face. Since its foundation, the unit has received over 16,000 inquiries.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many spouses of former far east prisoners of war have remarried and are thus ruled ineligible for the ex-gratia payment. [146740]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I indicated to the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 165, where the surviving spouse of a former far east prisoner of war (or of a member of any of the other groups included in the scheme) has since remarried, he or she remains eligible for the ex-gratia payment which is being made to the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war.

  Haslar Hospital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on military personnel and people in the Solent area from the closure of Haslar Hospital and expenditure at Queen Alexandra, Southampton and Winchester hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [146606]

  Dr. Moonie
  The decision and announcement in late 1998 that the Royal Hospital Haslar would close followed careful consideration of all the implications and subsequently has been a matter of extensive discussion between the Ministry of Defence, Department of Health and NHS locally. We are satisfied that the arrangements will be entirely appropriate in terms of treatment of service personnel. The impact of the closure of Haslar on the local civilian population and expenditure at Queen Alexandra, Southampton and Winchester hospitals is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We have reached agreement with the Department of Health on the funding we will transfer to compensate for the costs the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire health authority will incur for NHS patients who have hitherto been treated at Haslar without charge to the health authority.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to move service nurses to Selly Oak hospital from Haslar Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [146621]

  Dr. Moonie
  Nurses, doctors and other medical staff are moving from a number of defence medical units, including the Royal Hospital Haslar, to form the initial staffing of the Centre for Defence Medicine, which is being established in partnership with the University Hospital Birmingham NHS trust with its headquarters at the Selly Oak hospital. By April 2001, when the centre formally opens, Defence Medical Services personnel will be managing a surgical ward at the Selly Oak hospital, with other staff employed in the acute areas of the trust.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to develop the military ethos of Defence Medical Services. [146705]
  582W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Medical Services have a strong military ethos as an integral part of the armed forces. Those employed in MOD hospital units (MDHUs), working in a predominantly civilian medical environment, continue to undertake military training and have opportunities to participate in service sport and adventure training. Where appropriate, additional facilities may be provided, as in the case of the fitness centre for DMS personnel at the Frimley Park MDHU, which is due to be completed in spring this year.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of medical support was available to ground troops preparing for a possible intervention in Kosovo; and what assessment he has made of the level of medical support available to service the UK's commitment to(a) NATO and (b) the rapid reaction force. [146707]

  Dr. Moonie
  Medical support for UK troops deploying to Kosovo was provided at sufficient levels to meet the specified requirements. The level of medical support required for UK forces committed to a NATO or European rapid reaction force deployment would similarly depend on the operational circumstances at the time and would be drawn from the available resources of the UK Defence Medical Services.

  Royal Army Medical College, Millbank
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of the sale of the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank. [146887]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Ministry of Defence consulted a number of other Government Departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, before a final decision was taken on the preferred bidder for the purchase of the site of the former Royal Army Medial College at Millbank.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the agreed selling price of the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank. [146882]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]I am withholding details of the agreed selling price under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the contract to sell the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank has been signed. [146885]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The proposed date for exchange of contracts is 14 February, with completion due on 28 February.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings Ministers in his Department have had with bidders for the purchase of the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank. [146886]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, accompanied by the Minister for Education and
  583W
  Employment and the Minister for the Arts, received a presentation from each of the short-listed bidders on 21 September 2000.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the elimination of each of the unsuccessful bids for the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank; [146884]

  (2) if the Royal Army Medical College at Millbank is to be sold to the highest bidder. [146883]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Ministry of Defence selected the bid which best served the public interest, taking into account the presence of listed buildings on the Millbank site, its prominent location and proximity to Tate Britain.

  The guidelines for the disposal of heritage sites and listed buildings give Departments discretion to accept a lower bid where there are non-financial or wider environmental or cultural benefits.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the sale of surplus MOD property; and if he will make a statement. [146888]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Surplus Ministry of Defence property is disposed of in line with the overall economic objectives of the Government and within Treasury guidelines. This dictates that property is disposed of in a timely (usually within three years) and transparent manner (usually through open market testing) so that the interest of the tax payer is protected.

  Condoms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is in respect of the supply of condoms to UK service personnel; when the policy was last reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [146450]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Adult Education
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will set out the basis on which the sums being held back from local education authorities funding in relation to adult education in 2001–02 have been calculated; [145226]

  (2) if he will set out for each local education authority their spending on adult education this year and the sum being top-sliced from their funding for adult education in 2001–02. [145227]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]No sums are being held back or top sliced from local education authorities' funding. For 2001–02 the Government are allocating up to £142 million to local education authorities, via the Learning and Skills Council, for Adult and Community Learning—an increase of 5.7 per cent. on what authorities are spending in 2000–01. To help pay for this,584W
  £127 million was removed at national level from Education Standard Spending for 2000–01, before the addition of over £1 billion for 2001–02.

  The following table sets out, for each local education authority, their estimated spending on adult education in 2000–01, and the maximum provisional allocation they would receive for this activity in 2001–02 from the Learning and Skills Council, as notified to LEAs on 29 November 2000.

  Final figures for the maximum allocations from the Learning and Skills Council are under discussion between my Department and a number of authorities.

  £000

  LEA number

  LEA name

  LEA estimated adult education expenditure 2000–01

  Proposed LSC allocation for adult education 2001–02

  201

  City of London

  409

  432

  202

  Camden

  804

  850

  203

  Greenwich

  1,327

  1,403

  204

  Hackney

  1,311

  1,386

  205

  Hammersmith

  1,369

  1,447

  206

  Islington

  457

  483

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  922

  975

  208

  Lambeth

  1,709

  1,806

  209

  Lewisham

  1,698

  1,795

  210

  Southwark

  778

  822

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  1,877

  1,984

  212

  Wandsworth

  1,356

  1,434

  213

  Westminster

  2,272

  2,402

  301

  Barking

  580

  613

  302

  Barnet

  203

  215

  303

  Bexley

  745

  787

  304

  Brent

  1,053

  1,113

  305

  Bromley

  934

  987

  306

  Croydon

  1,594

  1,685

  307

  Ealing

  219

  231

  308

  Enfield

  59

  62

  309

  Haringey

  1,498

  1,583

  310

  Harrow

  364

  385

  311

  Havering

  261

  276

  312

  Hillingdon

  436

  461

  313

  Hounslow

  824

  871

  314

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  538

  569

  315

  Merton

  654

  692

  316

  Newham

  1,077

  1,138

  317

  Redbridge

  754

  797

  318

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  311

  329

  319

  Sutton

  1,362

  1,440

  320

  Waltham Forest

  1,295

  1,369

  330

  Birmingham

  3,556

  3,759

  331

  Coventry

  2,358

  2,493

  332

  Dudley

  475

  503

  333

  Sandwell

  386

  407

  334

  Solihull

  68

  72

  335

  Walsall

  833

  880

  336

  Wolverhampton

  1,624

  1,716

  340

  Knowsley

  74

  78

  341

  Liverpool

  3,602

  3,807

  342

  St. Helens

  192

  203

  343

  Sefton

  261

  275

  344

  Wirral

  678

  717

  350

  Bolton

  1,719

  1,817

  351

  Bury

  589

  623

  352

  Manchester

  3,253

  3,439

  353

  Oldham

  1,074

  1,135

  354

  Rochdale

  969

  1,024

  355

  Salford

  135

  142

  356

  Stockport

  523

  553

  357

  Tameside

  168

  177

  358

  Trafford

  43

  45

  359

  Wigan

  32

  34

  370

  Bamsley

  781

  826

  371

  Doncaster

  120

  127

  372

  Rotherham

  232

  245

  373

  Sheffield

  457

  483

  380

  Bradford

  395

  417

  585W

  £000

  LEA number

  LEA name

  LEA estimated adult education expenditure 2000–01

  Proposed LSC allocation for adult education 2001–02

  381

  Calderdale

  694

  734

  382

  Kirklees

  450

  476

  383

  Leeds

  1,515

  1,601

  384

  Wakefield

  713

  754

  390

  Gateshead

  30

  31

  391

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  247

  261

  392

  North Tyneside

  744

  786

  393

  South Tyneside

  579

  612

  394

  Sunderland

  353

  373

  420

  Isle of Scilly

  43

  45

  800

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  330

  349

  801

  Bristol City

  497

  525

  802

  North Somerset

  108

  114

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  97

  103

  805

  Hartlepool

  335

  355

  806

  Middlesbrough

  643

  680

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  554

  586

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  775

  819

  810

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  762

  805

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  723

  764

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  26

  28

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  687

  726

  815

  North Yorkshire

  1,476

  1,560

  816

  York

  450

  476

  820

  Bedfordshire

  485

  513

  821

  Luton

  570

  602

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  1,706

  1,803

  826

  Milton Keynes

  408

  431

  830

  Derbyshire

  2,989

  3,159

  831

  Derby City

  1,347

  1,423

  835

  Dorset

  427

  452

  836

  Poole

  209

  221

  837

  Bournemouth

  458

  484

  840

  Durham

  52

  55

  841

  Darlington

  0

  0

  845

  East Sussex

  949

  1,003

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  450

  476

  850

  Hampshire

  486

  514

  851

  Portsmouth

  69

  73

  852

  Southampton

  122

  129

  855

  Leicestershire

  2,143

  2,265

  856

  Leicester City

  3,217

  3,401

  857

  Rutland

  217

  229

  860

  Staffordshire

  1,337

  1,413

  861

  Stoke-on-Trent

  542

  573

  865

  Wiltshire

  191

  202

  866

  Swindon

  122

  129

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  414

  438

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  385

  407

  869

  West Berkshire

  291

  308

  870

  Reading

  613

  648

  871

  Slough

  128

  135

  872

  Wokingham

  345

  365

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  925

  978

  874

  Peterborough

  385

  407

  875

  Cheshire

  1,077

  1,138

  876

  Halton

  305

  322

  877

  Warrington

  200

  211

  878

  Devon

  2,023

  2,138

  879

  Plymouth

  501

  529

  880

  Torbay

  319

  337

  881

  Essex

  3,703

  3,914

  882

  Southend

  592

  626

  883

  Thurroek

  463

  489

  884

  Herefordshire

  45

  48

  885

  Worcestershire

  190

  201

  886

  Kent

  4,701

  4,969

  887

  Medway

  822

  869

  888

  Lancashire

  5,226

  5,524

  889

  Blackburn

  202

  214

  890

  Blackpool

  165

  174

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  1,541

  1,628

  892

  Nottingham City

  461

  487

  893

  Shropshire

  284

  300

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  65

  68

  908

  Cornwall

  1,034

  1,093

  909

  Cumbria

  888

  939

  916

  Gloucestershire

  1,710

  1,807

  586W

  £000

  LEA number

  LEA name

  LEA estimated adult education expenditure 2000–01

  Proposed LSC allocation for adult education 2001–02

  919

  Hertfordshire

  1,625

  1,718

  921

  Isle of Wight

  108

  114

  925

  Lincolnshire

  1,306

  1,381

  926

  Norfolk

  1,302

  1,376

  928

  Northamptonshire

  1,321

  1,396

  929

  Northumberland

  92

  98

  931

  Oxfordshire

  1,619

  1,711

  933

  Somerset

  2,566

  2,712

  935

  Suffolk

  1,692

  1,789

  936

  Surrey

  2,554

  2,700

  937

  Warwickshire

  1,254

  1,326

  938

  West Sussex

  1,404

  1,484

  Education Funding (Lancaster)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the extra capital and revenue resources he has made available to(a) St. Martin's College, Lancaster and (b) Lancaster University since 1 May 1997. [145543]

  Mr. Wicks
  St. Martin's College received total recurrent and capital resources of £9.35 million from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Teacher Training Agency in the academic year 1996–97. In academic year 2000–01 it will receive total recurrent and capital resources of £16.1 million, an increase of 72 per cent. over the year 1996–97.

  Lancaster University received total recurrent and capital resources of £27 million from HEFCE in academic year 1996–97. In academic year 2000–01 it will receive total recurrent and capital resources of £33.2 million, an increase of 23 per cent. over the year 1996–97.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in secondary schools; and what was the average class size in 1997. [146362]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The size of the average secondary class in January 1997 was 21.7. The figure in 2000 was 22.0. Secondary classes still have about five fewer pupils on average than primaries. The size of the average secondary class was below 20 in 1989, and rose consistently throughout the nineties. The rate of growth has in fact slowed since 1997 as a result of the additional investment this Government are making.

  We are on course to deliver our infant class size pledge. In Wokingham just 4 per cent. of pupils were in classes of 31 plus in September 2000 compared with 25 per cent. in Berkshire, which consisted of Wokingham and five other Local Education Authorities, in January 1998.

  School Clothing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will meet the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux to discuss a statutory power to provide assistance with school clothing costs to low
  587W
  income families; and if he will make a statement in respect of good practice guidance in school clothing grant schemes. [146486]

  Jacqui Smith
  I will be responding shortly to the National Association's correspondence about its report on school uniform costs. Local education authorities already have discretionary powers to offer grants towards school clothing costs in cases of hardship, and we have no current plans for further legislation. We have published good practice guidance on aspects of school uniforms, and I will be considering whether further guidance is needed.

  University Students
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals who are full-time students at a university in the UK have parental homes in Sussex. [146697]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The latest data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that in 1999–2000 there were 19,276 full-time students in higher education institutions in the UK whose home domicile was either in East or West Sussex.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons were recruited for secondary teacher training in(a) England and Wales and (b) England in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 2000–01. [146943]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For matters relating to teacher training numbers in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  In England, in 1996–97, the total number of people recruited to ITT courses was 28,430, of whom 15,965 were on secondary ITT courses. The provisional figures for 2000–01 are 27,674 in total, with 14,525 on secondary courses. A further 1,058 people have been recruited so far this year onto the Graduate Teacher Programme, which started in January 1998; with 604 trainees on secondary courses. Further recruitment for a further 622 GTP is expected during the summer term. Taken with ITT recruitment for 2000–01 this would mean that by the end of the year, over 29,000 are expected to be training as teachers. This would represent an increase of over 2,500 on 1999–2000, and is the first time since 1992–93 that recruitment to initial teacher training has risen in England.

  On 30 March 2000, the Government announced training salaries and new-style Golden Hellos, which have increased graduate recruitment to initial teacher training courses by 12 per cent. compared with last year; and of extra funding for the Graduate Teacher Programme, which is being doubled in size.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons were training to be teachers in each of the last eight years for which figures are available. [146944]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures for recruitment to ITT courses in England for the years 1992–93 to 2000–01 are presented in the following table.
  588W

  Total number of recruits

  1992–93

  29,507

  1993–94

  29,465

  1994–95

  29,252

  1995–96

  28,829

  1996–97

  28,430

  1997–98

  27,715

  1998–99

  26,207

  1999–2000

  25,967

  2000–011

  27,674

  1 2000–01 ITT recruitment figures are provisional figures

  Sources:

  1992–93 to 1993–94: DFE Recruitment Survey; 1994–95: HESES; 1995–96 onwards: Teacher Training Agency (TTA), Survey of ITT Providers

  These figures show the first rise in recruitment to ITT in eight years. In addition, extra funding is being provided to make nearly double the number of places on the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) available. The following table shows the latest figures for full-year recruitment to ITT, and autumn and spring term recruitment to GTP for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. It shows an increase in recruitment of over 2,250 so far this year, and further recruitment to GTP is expected in the summer term.

  Year of entry

  Recruitment numbers

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total ITT

  25,967

  27,674

  Autumn and spring term GTP

  507

  1,058

  Total

  26,474

  28,732

  Notes:

  1. 2000–01 ITT recruitment figures are provisional figures, from Teacher Training Agency (TTA) Survey of ITT Providers.

  2. The 2000–01 GTP recruitment figures are provisional figures for recruitment during autumn and spring terms 2000–01.

  3. These latest 2000–01 GTP figures represent 63 per cent. of the total fully funded GTP places available this year. The 1999–2000 GTP figures are as recorded at the end of the spring term, which represented 58 per cent. of the end of year total recruitment.

  4. Recruitment figures represent head-counts; that is the total of full-time and part-time recruitment.

  The recruitment increases follow the announcement on 30 March of training salaries and new-style Golden Hellos, which have increased graduate recruitment to initial teacher training courses by 12 per cent. compared with last year; and of extra funding for the Graduate Teacher Programme, which is being doubled in size.

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total capital expenditure available for schools in(a) Staffordshire and (b) Burton constituency for each year from 1990–91 to 2000–01. [146985]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information showing the schools in the Burton constituency which have benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98, is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. This is the only constituency level information which is readily available. These allocations formed part of the
  589W
  £20.151 million investment made so far in schools in Staffordshire local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of underfunding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available to Staffordshire local education authority.

  In total, since 1996, Staffordshire local education authority has received some £90.985 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings, as shown in a table which has also been placed in the Library.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

WALES

  Coal Compensation Committee
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names and affiliations of the members of the coal compensation monetary committee which he chairs. [145323]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It was agreed at the 29 November meeting of the GB-wide coal health claims monitoring group to set up a specific Welsh monitoring group, which will bring together all those involved in the process in Wales to discuss ways of speeding up payments to our ex-miners.

  The membership of this Welsh sub-group of the coal health claims monitoring group include:
  Secretary of State for Wales (chairman)
  National Assembly for Wales Minister for Health and Social Services
  Members of Parliament representing the area of the South Wales coal field.

  Representatives from:
  NACODS (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers) in Wales;
  NUM (National Union of Miners) of Wales; and the British Coal Respiratory Disease Claimants Solicitors Group.

  In addition, officials from the Department of Trade and Industry (including representatives from their service providers), Wales Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales) and the National Assembly for Wales are in attendance.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total
  590W
  spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146585]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has not carried out any surveys of policy issues either through focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or any other means since it was established on 1 July 1999.

  Reliable, comparable and complete statistics are not available for the former Welsh Office for the period from 1992–93 until the end of June 1999. However, all public opinion research by Government is subject to strict rules, which ensure that spending represents good value for the taxpayer.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Unlicensed Televisions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many homes in the UK are estimated to have television sets but no TV licence. [144940]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated number of households in the United Kingdom with television sets but without a valid television licence is 1.95 million.

  BBC
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the total funds received by the BBC in 2000 from the European Union. [145014]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]In common with other broadcasters, regulators and broadcasting research bodies across Europe, the BBC takes part in a range of technical research projects which attract funding from the European Commission. According to the latest information provided by the BBC, during the financial year 2000–01 the corporation has received a total of £444,000 in connection with such projects, as detailed in the following table.

  £

  Project/Purpose of project

  EC funding to BBC

  ATLANTIC

  Research and Development (R&D)—Advanced TV at low bit rates

  95,000

  ASSAVID

  R&D—automatic segmentation and semantic annotation of sports videos

  30,000

  DRIVE

  R&D—Dynamic Radio for IP-services in vehicles

  50,000

  G-FORS

  R&D—developing a stanardised file format

  60,000

  Metavision

  R&D—metavision

  32,000

  myTV

  R&D—personalised TV services

  10,000

  SAMBITS

  R&D—advance multime ha broadcast and IT services

  20,000

  591W

  £

  Project/Purpose of project

  EC funding to BBC

  STORiT

  R&D—storage interoperability technologies

  27,000

  PRESTO

  R&D—preservation of TV and radio material in archives

  60,000

  Schoolnet

  Development of a website for teachers across Europe

  60,000

  Total

  444,000

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when audited attendance figures for the Millennium Dome will be available; and if he will publish them. [145386]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]Total visitor attendance at the Dome was 6,517,116 million as announced by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) on 3 January 2001. In terms of the breakdown of that total (for example tickets sold and free entry) NMEC is in the process of reconciling ticket sales data across the various outlets (including train operating companies and river boat services), and visitor attendance data. The external audit of NMEC's operational year finances and ticket sales data are intended to commence in February and should be concluded by the end of March. The audited information will be incorporated in the company's next annual report and financial statements covering the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 which, under non-departmental public body requirements, will be published within six months of 31 December 2000.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets for the Millennium Experience had been sold in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland by 1 December 2000. [145893]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that the information sought is not available in the format requested. The nature of NMEC's ticket sales channels and the data arising from them do not allow definitive regional breakdowns covering all tickets sold. While postcode identification data are available from the call centre and national lottery outlets (which indicates that by 1 December 2000, 13,934 tickets had been sold in Northern Ireland, 52,053 in Scotland, 50,283 in Wales, and 3,634,272 in England), these figures do not include tickets purchased at the gate on the day of visits, nor do they include tickets sold as part of travel/visit packages by train operating companies or one-off coach company bookings.

  Also, not included in the call centre and national lottery statistics are those Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish schools who enjoyed visits to the Dome as part of the free school programme, and those schools and communities from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who visited the Dome as part of the "Our Town" story initiative. In addition, many of the other outreach initiatives (under the national programme and the learning experience), developed and implemented by NMEC as an integral
  592W
  part of the millennium experience, involved schools and communities across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 646, if he will make a statement on the involvement of Ministers in the sponsorship of the Faith Zone at the Millennium Dome by the Hinduja brothers. [147442]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, columns 645–46, I stated that the sole involvement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in Mr. S. Hinduja's application for British citizenship was for his then Parliamentary Private Secretary to inform Mr. Hinduja that his application would be dealt with in the normal way.

  As has now been made clear publicly, my right hon. Friend made inquiries about how an application might be viewed given the Government's wider policy of encouraging citizenship from long-standing residents who fulfilled the criteria, but did not make representations that an application be granted.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what criteria(a) current and (b) former members of the Board of Directors of the New Millennium Experience Company will be judged when deciding (i) whether these individuals will receive a bonus and (ii) the level of any bonus. [145413]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]The non-executive directors of the board of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) have never received remuneration and have never, therefore, been eligible for bonus payments. Among current executive directors, only Mr. P. Y. Gerbeau is eligible to be considered for a bonus. The past executive directors of the board have contracts which describe certain circumstances under which bonuses might be payable subject to the board's discretion. As is conventional in any contractual relationship between employer and employee, the criteria for such bonuses are confidential. However, as NMEC' s annual report and financial statements for the period ended 31 December 1999 (published July 2000) stated:"The performance related bonus scheme for executive directors includes critical success factors for the company covering the achievement of specified targets as well as an assessment of the personal contribution the individual has made to the success of the project. The total payable under the scheme to any director serving up to the end of 1999 is a maximum of 30 per cent. of contract earnings. The total payable to Mr. P. Y. Gerbeau is under review. Determination of the bonus payable will be entirely at the board's discretion and is based on its determination of performance against agreed criteria."

  The board's remuneration and recruitment committee is considering the issue of bonus payments to relevant directors and will be making its recommendations to the board in due course.

  Self-catering Accommodation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the new star rating system for self-catering accommodation is in operation in north-west England. [146819]

  Janet Anderson
  Yes. The new self-catering star rating system was launched throughout England on 27 September 2000.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the percentage of households which make use of(a) digital television and (b) digital radio. [146696]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]From the figures declared by the service providers, we estimate that around 6 million households in the UK use digital television, which represents 26 per cent. of households with a television. Estimates for the take-up of digital radio are not available, but around 20,000 digital radio receivers have been sold in the UK to date.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Indonesia. [145911]

  Mr. Battle
  We continue to follow events in Indonesia closely, and have a detailed dialogue with the Indonesian Government. The challenge for Indonesia is to build on the foundations laid by the recent democratic process and to deliver human rights and economic prosperity that benefit everybody. We will play a full part in helping towards that goal.

  We welcome the commitment of the Indonesian Government to resolve the country's regional conflicts through dialogue and reconciliation. We welcome the recently agreed moratorium on violence in Aceh. We hope this will allow both sides to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, through dialogue rather than force. We remain concerned about events in Maluku and Irian Jaya, and have made these concerns known to the Indonesian Government—I did so most recently with Foreign Minister Shihab on 12 December.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many spouses of UK citizens living abroad have been refused a visa to enter the UK. [146164]

  Mr. Vaz
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Statistics are available for the number of spouses refused entry clearance to join husbands or wives settled in the UK, but they do not distinguish between spouses of UK citizens living abroad and others. For most non-settlement applications, statistics are not available distinguishing between spouses and others.
  594W
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign relatives of UK citizens were denied visas to attend family weddings in the UK in the most recent year for which figures are available. [146165]

  Mr. Vaz
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Statistics are not collected on the number of applications for visas to attend weddings.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many initially refused applications for visas to enter the UK were(a) reconsidered and (b) approved, following intervention by hon. Members in the last three years. [146166]

  Mr. Vaz
  As Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for entry clearance, I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  I regret that the number of visa applications reconsidered following intervention by hon. Members is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As a result of intervention by hon. Members, I have, since October 1999, approved the issue of 45 visas that had previously been refused. No records of such approvals were held before this date.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the most recent returns relating to confidence-building measures submitted by states which are parties to the biological weapons convention. [146428]

  Mr. Hain
  The confidence-building measures (CBMs) drawn up by the states part to the biological weapons convention (BWC) are first submitted to the United Nations centre for disarmament and then shared on a Government-to-Government basis. The UK does not therefore presently have agreement to make the contents of these documents public. This can only be given by the BWC review conference which next takes place on 19 November to 17 December 2001 in Geneva. The UK will press for wider dissemination of this information on that occasion.

  A decision to place a copy of the UK CBMs in the House of Commons Library will be made after the necessary consultations with the other Government Departments, laboratories, and commercial companies which contribute to the UK's returns. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the British Government provide to support air traffic control monitoring in the air space in Sub-Saharan Africa. [146833]

  Mr. Hain
  We do not at present provide support for air traffic control monitoring in the air space of Sub-Saharan Africa.
  595W
  We have urged all members of the United Nations Security Council to consider what help we can provide in the region.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146933]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hold no information of the kind sought by my hon. Friend. The mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom and to contribute to a strong world community. For details of the Government's achievements in meeting its foreign policy targets, the following page of the FCO website may be helpful:http://www.fco.gov.uk/directory/dynpage asp?page=108

  Nigeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government have provided for Nigeria's human rights violations investigation commission. [146829]

  Mr. Hain
  Although we have not provided specific assistance to Nigeria's human rights violations investigation commission, we have directly funded several projects for Nigeria's permanent human rights body, the Nigerian human rights commission. We have also supported human rights projects through a number of NGOs and have helped NGOs attend Senate public hearings aimed at developing a national policy on human rights.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will disclose information collected by the British security services in Nigeria between 1966 and 1998 for the use of Nigeria's Human Rights Violations Investigations Commission. [147051]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received no requests for information from the Nigerians. It is not Government policy to comment on intelligence matters.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for a ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo following the death of President Kabila; and if he will make a statement. [147018]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK condemns all acts of political violence, including the assassination of President Laurent Kabila. The political situation in DRC is still not clear, but it is vital that the new leadership restores stability and seizes the opportunity fully to implement the Lusaka agreement, including facilitating the deployment of UN personnel in DRC territory and the establishment of national dialogue. We are urging all parties to the conflict not to take military advantage of the current uncertainty and to give new impetus to fulfilling their commitments under the Lusaka agreement.

  Southern Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports he has received of aerial bombings of civilian targets in Southern Sudan. [147052]

  Mr. Hain
  We received several reports of aerial bombings of civilian targets in southern Sudan last month from NGOs and church representatives. Our ambassador in Khartoum has made our concerns clear to the Sudanese authorities. We will continue to urge both sides to return to the negotiating table and agree a comprehensive ceasefire.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the health risks and (b) actual health damage to people in Iraq arising from exposure to depleted uranium used for bombing. [143502]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are aware of claims of an increase in ill-health (including alleged deformities, cancers and birth defects) in southern Iraq, and that some have attributed this to the use of depleted uranium (DU)—based ammunition by UK and US forces during the Gulf conflict of 1991. The principal problem is lack of detailed information about the health situation not just in that area but throughout Iraq. However, we have encouraged the World Health Organisation to work with the Iraqis on a proper study—only then can particular problems be properly addressed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  IACS Regulations (Flooding)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that farmers whose land has been affected by flooding meet the requirements of the IACS regulations. [144884]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]In addition to the measures announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 7 November, we have been evaluating with fanning organisations here and with the European Commission in Brussels the extent to which further flexibility may be needed in applying certain CAP scheme rules.

  The EU' s Cereals Management Committee has approved a derogation from Article 19(3) of Commission Regulation 2316/1999 to extend the latest date for harvesting crops from land to be set aside in 2001 from 15 January to 28 February, with a further extension to 31 March in the specific cases of sugar beet and potatoes.

  We have also put to the Commission proposed changes to our national implementing rules for the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) designed to allow farmers on whose land winter crops have either been lost, or could simply not be planted, the option of trying to establish spring sown crops after 15 January, retaining the possibility of entering such land into set-aside up to the 15 May IACS claim deadline if the attempts prove unsuccessful. Similarly we are proposing to treat flood damaged winter crops which are either ploughed in or

  597W
  otherwise destroyed by 15 May as meeting our green cover requirements for entry into set-aside if no other crop is feasible. We will be making further detailed announcements about this in the light of the Commission's response.

  We will be exercising our national discretion under Council Regulation 1251/1999 to extend the relevant latest sowing dates from 15 May to 31 May 2001 and will keep open the possibility of seeking extensions if necessary.

  We have also requested that all farmers who consider their cropping plans to have been affected by the recent extreme weather conditions should let their local MAFF Regional Service Centre have details of the circumstances so that these are on record when subsequent area payment claims come to be assessed.

  The position on other IACS schemes remains under review.

  Potato and Sugar Beet Crops
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the impact of recent severe weather conditions on potato and sugar beet crops. [146234]

  Ms Quin
  There have been a small number of representations specifically addressing the impact of the recent severe weather on potato crops although none specifically in relation to sugar beet. The National Farmers Union has also made representations about these crops where they are on land which is to be set aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme in 2001. Under EU rules, these crops have to be harvested by 15 January to allow the land to be set aside. However, as the bad weather has seriously delayed the harvest, my right hon. Friend the Minister wrote to Commissioner Fischler. As a result, the Commission has made a regulation which, where the adverse weather has prevented an earlier harvest, permits any crop to be harvested up to 28 February and potatoes and sugar beet to be harvested up to 31 March on land which is to be set aside in 2001. As required by the EU regulation, any farmer who wishes to take advantage of this should contact his/her MAFF Regional Service Centre.

  Floodline
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed on the Environment Agency's Floodline programme during the period October to December 2000. [145472]

  Mr. Morley
  The Floodline service is operated at a BT call centre where callers can either listen to pre-recorded information or speak to a live operator. Calls are initially taken by a BT operator who will try to respond to the call. If this is not possible, or if the call relates to a particular flooding emergency, they will refer the caller to the relevant Environment Agency office (to which there is a 24-hour link for emergencies).

  The call centre is normally staffed with up to 10 positions, but during the recent flooding that number was increased to 20 operators with a total of 42 trained to cover the whole day's shift (8 am to 12 am). The agency
  598W
  estimates that some 5,000 hours were spent by BT call centre staff on Floodline during the period October to December 2000.

  The agency's offices receiving calls from Floodline, or direct from the public, will have been staffed at variable levels during the flooding period. Some staff would have been dedicated to dealing with such calls, others would have combined this with other work. In total the agency estimates that its staff spent some 8,200 hours on Floodline work during October to December 2000.

  Floodline received a total of 689,838 calls during the same three month period. This compares to some 102,000 calls in the first year of the service's operation.

  The operation of Floodline will be included in the "lessons learned" report that the agency will be producing on the flooding.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of patients waited in accident and emergency for more than two hours, once a decision had been made that they need a bed for each quarter for the last two years in each NHS Trust or Health Authority, by NHS region. [141507]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]National summary information on emergency admissions through accident and emergency departments for the period Quarter 1 1998–99 to Quarter 2 2000–01 is given in the table and is available in the Library.

  Information by health authority and National Health Service trust is not routinely published.

  Year and quarter

  Total number admitted through A&E in quarter

  Number of patients admitted to ward more than 2 hours

  Percentage of patients admitted to ward more than 2 hours

  2000–01

  Quarter 1

  511,782

  116,550

  23

  Quarter 2

  516,977

  120,785

  23

  1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  486,909

  85,630

  18

  Quarter 2

  497,277

  90,629

  18

  Quarter 3

  523,318

  112,139

  21

  Quarter 4

  527,615

  126,978

  24

  1998–99

  Quarter 1

  480,669

  83,279

  17

  Quarter 2

  473,681

  80,380

  17

  Quarter 3

  501,767

  103,223

  21

  Quarter 4

  497,662

  103,545

  21

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the areas of policymaking for which the Food Standards Agency is responsible and those areas of policymaking for which his Department is responsible. [144122]
  599W
  Ms Stuart
  Under Section 6 of the Food Standards Act 1999, the Food Standards Agency is responsible for developing policies relating to matters connected with food safety or other interests of consumers in relation to food. The Department is responsible for improving and protecting the health and social well being of the people of England, tackling the causes of ill-health and modernising the National Health Service and personal social services.

  In certain subject areas, such as nutrition, the two Departments have a shared interest. Details of the relative responsibilities of the two Departments in such areas are set out in a concordat, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Lists (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are on NHS waiting lists in the Barnet Health Authority area; how many were on such lists in May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [146509]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures relate to the total inpatient waiting list. Data for May 1997 are not available as data were only collected quarterly at that point. Therefore data are provided for the two nearest quarter months for Barnet Health Authority:

  Total inpatient waiting list—Barnet Health Authority

  Total

  March 1997

  7,321

  June 1997

  7,198

  November 2000

  5,360

  Source:

  QF01 quarterly return/monthly returns

  In 1999–2000 both inpatient waiting lists and the number of outpatients waiting over 13 weeks, nationally were reduced. This demonstrates that waiting is being attacked on a broad front, and one is not being reduced at the expense of the other.

  The inpatient waiting list is currently 137,000 below the level inherited, and at September 2000, the number of outpatients waiting over 13 weeks fell by 9,000 since the last quarter.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to add other NHS trusts in Hampshire to the list of trusts providing digital hearing aids. [146512]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The Department will study the results of the modernising National Health Service hearing aid services project at the twenty participating NHS trusts to determine how changes to hearing aid services are rolled out to the NHS. Pending the outcome of the project other hospitals are able to access the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids where the service criteria are met.

  Salaries
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary is being paid to the holder of the office of Chief Executive of the NHS and Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health. [146955]
  600W
  Ms Stuart
  Information concerning the salaries of all permanent secretaries is published in the annual Senior Salaries Review Body report. For the purposes of the report the pay ranges applicable to permanent secretaries are divided into £5,000 bands. It is not normal practice to publish the actual salary in payment to individual permanent secretaries. The salary of Nigel Crisp, Chief Executive of the National Health Service and Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health, falls within the range £145,000-£149,999.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the funding of the London Ambulance Service, to improve pay and conditions of staff. [146625]

  Ms Stuart
  Ambulance staff on national terms, including those employed by the London Ambulance service, have been offered an above inflation increase of 3.7 per cent. from 1 April 2001. We are currently awaiting a response from trade unions on this offer. National Health Service trusts have the flexibility to pay still more where there are proven recruitment and retention difficulties.

  This year an extra £6 million was given to the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. Discussions are underway over additional funding for 2001–02.

  High-energy Drinks
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the side-effects of high-energy drinks; what research he has commissioned into these products; and if he will make a statement. [145953]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]We have not received any recent representations on the side-effects of high-energy drinks and the Department and the Food Standards Agency have not commissioned any research in this area.

  Mortality Rates
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's clinical indicators and the CHKS tables of mortality rates by hospital trust. [146490]

  Mr. Denham
  The last set of clinical indicators published by the Department was issued in July 2000 in "Quality and Performance Indicators".

  CHKS is a private sector organisation, which collects data from a proportion of trusts in the United Kingdom.

  Keyhole Operations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations have been made by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence about reducing keyhole operations on financial grounds; and if he will make a statement. [146767]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has given guidance on the use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer and inguinal hernia. The details of this guidance can be obtained from NICE.
  601W
  When undertaking its appraisals NICE takes into account both clinical and cost effectiveness in accordance with Directions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Nursing Care Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer concerning nursing care, on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 246–47W, if he will set out for each local authority with social services responsibilities the amount that has been deducted from their SSA to reflect the change in responsibility for paying for nursing care. [146702]

  Mr. Hutton
  No amount has been deducted from local authorities' standard spending assessment to reflect the planned change in responsibility for paying for nursing care. If Parliament agrees to change the way nursing care in nursing homes is funded, we will ensure the appropriate financial arrangements are made.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 5W, on nursing home charges, how frequently the needs of a person will be assessed by a registered nurse. [146455]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan to issue guidance to the effect that reassessment will take place three months after the first assessment of registered nurse input and then at intervals of no more than 12 months. The guidance will also outline the circumstances which will trigger immediate reassessment. The registered nurse whom is providing care to the individual will be monitoring the person's condition and will make any immediate changes to care that are necessary.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 247W, concerning payment of fees, if he will set out the forecasts for fee levels in residential and nursing homes for the spending review period. [146704]

  Mr. Hutton
  A wide range of factors were taken into account in the spending review for future changes in costs and functions faced by social services authorities. This does not attempt to forecast a fee level for nursing homes or residential homes. That is matter for negotiation between each home and its client, or the responsible local or health authority.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients were waiting for treatment for more than six months in each of the last 10 years in the(a) Sutton and Cheam constituency and (b) Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority. [146378]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not held by constituency.

  Data on outpatients were not collected prior to 1997.

  The number of patients waiting longer than six months for a first outpatient appointment resulting from a general practitioner referral in Merton Sutton and Wandsworth as at 31 March is as follows:
  602W

  Year

  Number of patients waiting

  1997–98

  185

  1998–99

  1,014

  1999–2000

  1,273

  NHS Finances
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his most recent forecast is of the(a) turnover, (b) surplus or deficit and (c) surplus or deficit as a percentage of the turnover, for (i) each health authority, (ii) each NHS trust, (iii) each NHS region and (iv) England in the current financial year and in 1999–2000. [146377]

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

  Hospital Funding (Lancashire)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the extra capital and revenue resources he has made available to(a) Royal Lancaster Infirmary and (b) Blackpool Victoria Hospital since 1 May 1997. [145542]

  Mr. Denham
  The extra capital and revenue resources which have been made available to the Morecambe Bay Hospitals National Health Service Trust (which is now responsible for the Royal Lancaster Infirmary) and Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust is as follows:

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust1,2

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total overall income (£ million)

  48.5

  50.3

  111.3

  123.9

  ercentage increase on total income

  3.81

  —

  11.35

  —

  The Morecambe Bay Hospital Trust has also received £15.3 million for capital investment3

  1 The Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust was formed on 1 April 1998 following the merger of three acute hospital trusts (Furness General Hospitals NHS Trust, Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and Westmoreland Hospital NHS Trust). In addition, the information for the years 1996–97 and 1997–98 is specific to the former Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS Trust only.

  2 The overall income of trust includes non-recurrent one-off allocations.

  3 The figure of £15.3 million also includes £4.1 million which relates to capital investment schemes at the then Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust1,2

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total Overall Income (£ million)

  79.8

  84.8

  128.5

  184.1

  Percentage increase on total income

  6.31

  51.52

  43.20

  —

  The Blackpool Victoria Trust has also received £11.3 million for capital investment

  1 The overall income of trust includes non-recurrent one off allocations.

  2 Blackpool Victoria Hospital Trust receives income from the training consortium which has been included within its overall operating income and the increase in this income accounts for the large percentage increases year on year on total income.

  Children (Christmas Holidays)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-resident parents were denied the opportunity to see their children over Christmas and New Year holiday as a result of decisions made by parents with care; and how many children were thus affected. [146168]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods his Department is using to alert the NHS and GPs to the existence of the Medical Assessment Programme for volunteers who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [146649]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health sent an electronic message about the Medical Assessment Programme for Porton Down volunteers to Directors of Public Health in England on 21 November 2000. This message was then forwarded to General Practitioners, Chief Executives of Health Authorities, Chairs of Primary Care Groups, Primary Care Medical Advisers, Project managers/Nurse leads in Walk-in Centres and Leads at nurse-led Personal Medical Services Pilots. A copy of the message was also sent to the Library of the House and is available on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo3.htm. The Health Departments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have disseminated this message to GPs and Health Board Directors of Public Health within their area of responsibility.

  The Porton Down Volunteers' Medical Assessment Programme has only just started and it is therefore too early to consider the analysis of its data. The data about specific individuals' referral to the Medical Assessment Programme will be medically confidential. However, it is planned to aggregate and anonymise the data to form a case series for analysis. Such data could, with volunteers' consent, be made available to independent researchers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the benefits of introducing a liabilities regime in respect of contamination and damage from GM crops. [144224]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]I shall be considering this year a range of options concerning possible new provisions for liability in respect of any damage from GM crops. In this regard I will take into account the European Commission's proposals on environmental liability due later this year. My review will assess the benefits of such provisions as well as the difficulties that would have to be addressed.

  Such benefits might include reassurance for the public and nearby fanners, an effective mechanism for ensuring the remediation of environmental damage, and greater
  604W
  responsibility by producers of GM seeds and growers of GM crops in assessing their obligations to other farmers and the public.

  Unsafe Vessels
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers of intervention his representative has to allow the entry of unsafe vessels to ports. [146157]

  Mr. Hill
  A harbour master may give directions under the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 prohibiting the entry into, or requiring the removal from, the harbour of any vessel if its condition, or the nature or condition of anything it contains, is such that its presence in the harbour might involve a grave and imminent danger to the safety of persons or property or a risk that the vessel may, by sinking or foundering in the harbour, prevent or seriously prejudice the use of the harbour by other vessels. Such directions given by the harbour master may be over-ridden by the Secretary of State or his representative. There are also powers in Sections 137 and 138 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as amended by the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Foreign Ships) Order 1997. These powers enable the Secretary of State, or his representative, to give directions to allow, or if appropriate refuse, the entry of a vessel to a port for the purpose of preventing or minimising pollution, or the threat of pollution, following a maritime accident.

  Traffic Changes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the year on year changes were in(a) all road traffic, (b) non-motorway traffic, (c) passenger rail use, (d) rail freight, (e) motorcycle use and (f) bicycle use (i) between 1997 and 1999 and (ii) since October 2000; and what the latest forecasts for changes in these categories are. [147027]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage change on previous year

  Great Britain

  1998

  1999

  All traffic (vehicle kilometres)

  1.5

  1.7

  Non-motorway traffic (veh-kms)

  0.9

  1.5

  Passenger rail use (passenger kms)

  4.7

  6.2

  Rail freight (tonne-kms)

  2.4

  4.1

  Motorcycle use (veh-kms)

  -5

  18

  Bicycle use (veh-kms)

  -2

  5

  Information about road traffic since October 2000 is due to be published on 8 February 2001; information about rail passenger use and rail freight since October 2000 will be published in March 2001.

  The latest forecasts are those prepared for the Government's 10-year-plan for transport, published in July 2000. They take into account the expected effect of the measures set out in the plan. There are no forecasts of motorcycle use, as there is at present insufficient evidence of its relationship with economic or other variables on which to base sound forecasts.
  605W

  Percentage change 2010 compared to 2000

  All traffic (vehicle-kms England)

  17

  Non-motorway traffic

  15

  Passenger rail use (passenger km, GB)

  50

  Rail freight (tonne-km, GB)

  80

  Bicycle use (trips, England)

  200

  Buses
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many buses running on(a) road fuel gases and (b) other alternative fuels there were at the latest date for which figures are available. [147029]

  Mr. Hill
  Figures provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency show that, for the end of the third quarter of 2000, 114 buses were registered as being powered by road fuel gases. There were also eight buses registered as being powered solely by electricity. Data for other types of alternative fuel are not collected.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average levels of new car carbon dioxide emissions were in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1999. [147028]

  Mr. Hill
  The following table shows average new car carbon dioxide emissions in grams per kilometre for the UK and the EU for both 1995 and 1999.

  g/km

  UK

  EU

  1995

  191.5

  186.4

  1999

  185.4

  175.9

  Alleyways
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to allow local authorities to close off alleyways causing a public nuisance if requested to do so by the police; and if he will make a statement. [146577]

  Mr. Hill
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gives local highway authorities powers to make special extinguishment and special diversion orders for closing or diverting public rights of way (which may include alleyways) for the purpose of preventing or reducing crime where premises near a right of way are affected by high levels of crime and the existence of that right of way is facilitating the persistent commission of offences.

  Regeneration (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public funding has been allocated for regeneration purposes to the London Borough of Wandsworth since May 1997. [146500]
  606W
  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested is, as far as possible, given in the following paragraph:Single Regeneration Budget—£25.588 million

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding figures relate to the lifetime amount awarded to schemes since round 3 (round 3 being the 1997–98 award period). As these are lifetime figures this does not reflect the annual amount spent; rather the figures represent the amount paid plus the amount outstanding within the award. However where an award is agreed, in principle, funding is released on an annual basis and this release is dependent upon the total available budget at the time of the annual review. Figures are given for those schemes where the relevant Borough Council is the Accountable Body. Funding may have been awarded to organisations within the borough, or working within the borough, over and above these figures. Figures provided reflect the amounts which were awarded directly to the Local Authority only—source London Development Agency.

  London Borough Councils
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the London borough councils that follow a cabinet system of administration in their local authority area. [146939]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rent Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many members of rent tribunals covering the Greater London area come from an ethnic community background. [146938]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are 10 members from ethnic minorities appointed to sit on rent tribunals in the Greater London area. This represents 10 per cent. of the total membership of the London rent assessment panel, from which rent tribunals are drawn.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if his Department intends to monitor the number of abandoned vehicles on public highways and private property over the forthcoming year and the associated removal costs incurred by local authorities; [146514]

  (2) what measures his Department intends to introduce to assist local authorities with the removal of abandoned vehicles on public highways and private property. [146513]

  Mr. Mullin
  My officials are currently in discussion with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to address the growing problem of abandoned vehicles.

  The Government have improved registration arrangements to require the seller to notify DVLA of a change of ownership. DVLA is encouraging local authorities to link electronically with them so that vehicle keeper information can be obtained more quickly. DVLA will also shortly issue a circular to all local authorities on the procedures for dealing with abandoned vehicles.
  607W
  Last year the LGA carried out a survey on the scale of the problem, how it was being managed locally and the operating costs involved. A LGA/ACPO working group has been convened, involving Government officials, to produce (i) a good practice guide for local authorities and police forces on the management of abandoned vehicles and (ii) a Memorandum of Understanding between LGA and ACPO. At this stage, we believe a separate Government monitoring exercise on abandoned vehicles would create unnecessary duplication.

  Thameslink
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the frequency and reliability of Thameslink services from Mill Hill, Bushey and Hendon. [146732]

  Mr. Hill
  Most rail services have been subject to delay and cancellations due to adverse weather conditions and the speed restrictions imposed for safety reasons by Railtrack in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. Improved services on the cross-London route began to take effect from 8 January and Thameslink is now running a near normal service.

  London Underground Escalators
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many escalators are installed at London Underground stations; how many are out of action; and what is the average length of time taken to bring unserviceable units back into service. [146642]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL) who inform me that the total number of escalators on the network is 403 (plus six at Canary Wharf which are commissioned but not yet in passenger service).

  I understand from them that at the 8 January 2001, 26 machines were unavailable for customer service. There are three basic causes for an escalator to be out of service—planned maintenance or replacement, casualty repair and work to rectify any extraordinary safety issues such as top-shaft replacement. Of the 26 out of service, 14 were part of planned maintenance or refurbishment programmes. In most cases where an escalator is out of order there will be a parallel escalator which is in operation to minimise passenger inconvenience and disruption. This generally enables stations to remain open while the works are in progress and at all times safety is the priority.

  There is a range of types of escalators, and the mixture of types of work which may be needed on them varies significantly as indicated above. It is therefore difficult to estimate the average length of time taken to bring unserviceable units back into service This is because the snapshots of various moments in time which reflect different escalators affected, and the different types of work involved, may lead to significantly different estimates.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment 608W
  he has made of the effect of cyclists using bus lanes in terms of (a) delay caused to buses, (b) danger to other road users due to buses overtaking cyclists and (c) danger to cyclists. [146964]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of an ongoing research project, my Department has commissioned a study of the use of bus lanes by cyclists. The emerging results indicate that in bus lanes of less than 3.5m, buses may be delayed by cyclists, but that this is only a significant problem if cycle flows are high. The Department's guidance on bus lanes, Local Transport Note 1–97 "Keeping Buses Moving", is that they should be designed to the recommended width of 4.25m wherever possible. That width allows buses to overtake cyclists safely, and reduces the likelihood of interference from general traffic in the adjacent lane. Pedal cyclists are allowed to use withflow bus lanes because they would be more likely to be involved in an accident if required to ride in the main traffic lane with buses passing on their nearside. Results of attitude surveys of cyclists indicate that cycling in a bus lane was considered to be safer than cycling on a similar road without a bus lane.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require cyclists to use cycle lanes where these are provided. [146963]

  Mr. Hill
  None. We recommend that cyclists use cycle lanes on the carriageway because of the protection they can offer cyclists from other traffic. However, decisions on whether and when to use cycle lanes are for individual cyclists to take.

  Rents
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects rent officers and rent assessment panels to complete the process of(a) revising rents and (b) recovering overpaid rent paid by registered tenants affected by the House of Lords decision on the Maximum Fair Rent Order. [146493]

  Mr. Mullin
  We expect the Rent Service to complete revision of registrations affected by the judgment which fall to rent officers by the end of February. The rent assessment panels are considering what action committees should take on the small percentage of cases which fall to them in the light of the guidance issued by my Department.

  Rent officers and rent assessment committees are not able to act to recover overpaid rent. This is a matter between landlords and tenants.

  Travellers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library details of the numbers of incidents of illegal trespass by travellers reported by local authorities for the last three years(a) in total and (b) for each local authority. [146866]

  Mr. Prescott
  Information in this form is not collected centrally. On behalf of the Department, local authorities undertake both a twice-yearly count of authorised and
  609W
  unauthorised gypsy caravans and an update of the list of local authority gypsy sites. Copies of these are routinely placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Housing Associations (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the financial allocation from his Department is to housing associations in the City of Durham for the(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 financial years. [146822]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Housing Corporation has allocated £807,000 grant to schemes in the city of Durham for the 2000–01 financial year. Allocations have not yet been made for the 2001–02 financial year.

  Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he had with representatives of Gloucestershire fire and rescue service before announcing their standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement. [146610]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 23 January 2001: I announced the provisional local government finance settlement for 2001–02 on 27 November last year. Under our proposals, Gloucestershire's fire standard spending assessment increased by £0.166 million or 1.4 per cent. Consultation finished on Tuesday 9 January and I have been considering all responses, including the representations received from Gloucestershire county council, as I take final decisions. The House will have the opportunity to debate our proposals—this is provisionally set for Wednesday 31 January.

  Neighbourhood renewal fund allocations

  NRF

  LA names

  Share of the new £million

  Revised NRF allocation 2001–02(£ million)

  Allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  Allocation 2003–04 (£ million)

  Total over three years (£ million)

  Allerdale

  0.214

  0.428

  0.642

  0.855

  1.925

  Ashfield

  0.241

  0.482

  0.723

  0.964

  2.168

  Barking and Dagenham

  0.408

  0.816

  1.225

  1.633

  3.673

  Barnsley

  1.361

  2.722

  4.083

  5.444

  12.249

  Barrow-in-Furness

  0.460

  0.92

  1.379

  1.838

  4.137

  Birmingham

  5.511

  11.022

  16.533

  22.043

  49.598

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.084

  2.168

  3.251

  4.335

  9.754

  Blackpool

  0.752

  1.504

  2.256

  3.008

  6.768

  Bolsover

  0.367

  0.734

  1.102

  1.469

  3.305

  Bolton

  1.356

  2.712

  4.069

  5.426

  12.207

  Bradford

  2.453

  4.906

  7.359

  9.812

  22.077

  Brent

  0.570

  1.14

  1.709

  2.279

  5.128

  Brighton and Hove

  0.342

  0.684

  1.027

  1.369

  3.08

  Bristol

  0.891

  1.782

  2.674

  3.565

  8.022

  Burnley

  0.318

  0.636

  0.955

  1.273

  2.865

  Camden

  1.055

  2.11

  3.164

  4.219

  9.492

  Coventry

  1.322

  2.644

  3.967

  5.290

  11.901

  Croydon

  0.145

  0.29

  0.436

  0.581

  1.307

  Derby

  0.813

  1.626

  2.438

  3.250

  7.314

  Derwentside

  0.371

  0.742

  1.112

  1.482

  3.336

  Doncaster

  2.197

  4.394

  6.592

  8.790

  19.777

  Dudley

  0.380

  0.76

  1.140

  1.521

  3.421

  Ealing

  0.229

  0.458

  0.688

  0.917

  2.063

  Motor Fuels
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means he intends to facilitate competition between independent petrol retailers and oil companies for the provision of motor fuels at motorway service areas. [147048]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department requires the operators of all motorway service areas to meet a range of minimum standards. This includes a requirement that fuel should be available 24 hours a day every day of the year. How this requirement should be met, however, and which brand or brands of fuel should be available, are matters for service area operators.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the neighbourhood renewal fund. [147368]

  Mr. Prescott
  £800 million is already available over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund to help the authorities in the most deprived areas, and therefore under the most pressures, to begin to make progress raising standards in core services. This complements the major increase in investment and new floor targets for public services announced in the spending review.

  We published our action plan on neighbourhood renewal last week. Our aim is that within 10–20 years no one is disadvantaged because of where they live. We all want to see fast and effective progress on this and I am pleased to announce that we are increasing the NRF provision for 2001–02 from £100 million to £200 million. This means that the action plan will get off to a strong start next financial year with even more positive action taking place at a local level.

  The revised allocations under the NRF are set out as follows.
  611W

  Neighbourhood renewal fund allocations

  NRF

  LA names

  Share of the new £million

  Revised NRF allocation 2001–02(£ million)

  Allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  Allocation 2003–04 (£ million)

  Total over three years (£ million)

  Easington

  1.108

  2.216

  3.325

  4.433

  9.975

  Enfield

  0.465

  0.93

  1.395

  1.860

  4.184

  Gateshead

  1.161

  2.322

  3.482

  4.643

  10.447

  Great Yarmouth

  0.497

  0.994

  1.490

  1.987

  4.471

  Greenwich

  0.970

  1.94

  2.911

  3.881

  8.733

  Hackney

  2.941

  5.882

  8.824

  11.765

  26.472

  Halton

  0.982

  1.964

  2.946

  3.928

  8.839

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.258

  0.516

  0.775

  1.033

  2.325

  Haringey

  1.334

  2.668

  4.001

  5.335

  12.004

  Hartlepool

  0.784

  1.568

  2.353

  3.138

  7.059

  Hastings

  0.344

  0.688

  1.031

  1.375

  3.094

  Hyndburn

  0.323

  0.646

  0.970

  1.294

  2.91

  Islington

  1.568

  3.136

  4.703

  6.270

  14.108

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.270

  0.54

  0.811

  1.081

  2.431

  Kerrier

  0.403

  0.806

  1.208

  1.610

  3.624

  Kingston upon Hull

  1.877

  3.754

  5.630

  7.507

  16.892

  Kirklees

  0.748

  1.496

  2.244

  2.992

  6.732

  Knowsley

  1.848

  3.696

  5.543

  7.391

  16.63

  Lambeth

  0.605

  1.21

  1.816

  2.422

  5.448

  Leeds

  2 099

  4.198

  6.297

  8.396

  18.89

  Leicester

  2 094

  4.188

  6.283

  8.377

  18.848

  Lewisham

  0 613

  1.226

  1.839

  2.453

  5.518

  Lincoln

  0 100

  0.2

  0.300

  0.400

  0.9

  Liverpool

  5 033

  10.066

  15.100

  20.133

  45.298

  Luton

  0 377

  0.754

  1.132

  1.510

  3.397

  Manchester

  5 149

  10.298

  15.446

  20.595

  46.339

  Mansfield

  0 575

  1.15

  1.724

  2.299

  5.172

  Middlesbrough

  1 312

  2.624

  3.937

  5.249

  11.811

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1 711

  3.422

  5.132

  6.843

  15.397

  Newham

  3 333

  6.666

  9.999

  13.332

  29.997

  North Tyneside

  0 768

  1.536

  2.305

  3.074

  6.915

  Nottingham

  2 311

  4.622

  6.934

  9.246

  20.803

  Oldham

  1 168

  2.336

  3.505

  4.674

  10.516

  Pendle

  0 490

  0.98

  1.471

  1.961

  4.412

  Penwith

  0.207

  0.414

  0.622

  0.829

  1.865

  Plymouth

  0.529

  1.058

  1.586

  2.114

  4.757

  Portsmouth

  0.239

  0.478

  0.717

  0.957

  2.152

  Preston

  0.630

  1.26

  1.890

  2.520

  5.671

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.868

  1.736

  2.604

  3.472

  7.812

  Rochdale

  1.219

  2.438

  3.658

  4.878

  10.975

  Rotherham

  0.917

  1.834

  2.751

  3.669

  8.254

  Salford

  1.360

  2.72

  4.081

  5.441

  12.242

  Sandwell

  2.013

  4.026

  6.038

  8.051

  18.114

  Sedgefield

  0.285

  0.57

  0.854

  1.139

  2.563

  Sefton

  1.408

  2.816

  4.223

  5.631

  12.671

  Sheffield

  2.395

  4.79

  7.186

  9.581

  21.557

  South Tyneside

  1.346

  2.692

  4.037

  5.382

  12.11

  Southampton

  0.215

  0.43

  0.646

  0.862

  1.939

  Southwark

  1.978

  3.956

  5.934

  7.912

  17.803

  St. Helens

  0.968

  1.936

  2.905

  3.873

  8.714

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.963

  1.926

  2.889

  3.852

  8.667

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1.008

  2.016

  3.025

  4.034

  9.075

  Sunderland

  1.791

  3.582

  5.373

  7.164

  16.119

  Tameside

  0.335

  0.67

  1.005

  1.340

  3.015

  Tower Hamlets

  2.656

  5.312

  7.968

  10.624

  23.903

  Wakefield

  1.110

  2.22

  3.329

  4.439

  9.989

  Walsall

  1.780

  3.56

  5.341

  7.122

  16.024

  Waltham Forest

  0.638

  1.276

  1.915

  2.553

  5.745

  Wandsworth

  0.100

  0.2

  0.300

  0.400

  0.9

  Wansbeck

  0.345

  0.69

  1.034

  1.379

  3.104

  Wear Valley

  0.427

  0.854

  1.280

  1.706

  3.839

  Westminster

  0.374

  0.748

  1.123

  1.497

  3.369

  Wigan

  0.681

  1.362

  2.044

  2.725

  6.131

  Wirral

  1 269

  2.538

  3.806

  5.075

  11.419

  Wolverhampton

  1 482

  2.964

  4.446

  5.928

  13.339

  Total

  100.000

  200.000

  300.000

  400.000

  900.000

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many initial asylum decisions were made, how many and what proportion were dismissed on grounds of incorrect or delayed applications and how many and what proportion were appealed against; and if he will make a statement. [145712]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information for the latest five years for which data are available is given in the table.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Number of decisions

  27,005

  38,960

  36,045

  31,570

  33,720

  Refused on non compliance grounds2

  2,085

  2,015

  3,615

  2,995

  1,085

  Proportion (percentage)

  8

  5

  10

  9

  3

  Appeals received3

  14,035

  22,985

  20,950

  14,320

  6,615

  Proportion (percentage)

  52

  59

  58

  45

  20

  1 Provisional figures. All figures rounded to the nearest five.

  Initial decisions1 on asylum applications, excluding dependants, by year of application

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19992,3

  Applications received

  43,965

  29,640

  32,500

  46,015

  71,160

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum4

  2,190

  1,460

  3,390

  3,925

  355

  Proportion (percentage)

  5

  5

  16

  9

  1

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave4

  6,435

  2,330

  1,665

  1,945

  403

  Proportion (percentage)

  15

  8

  5

  4

  1

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave4

  22,045

  14,540

  14,725

  13,235

  4,580

  Proportion (percentage)

  50

  49

  45

  29

  6

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  2 1999 figures may exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  3 Provisional figures.

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

  Asylum appeals1 received by the Home Office, excluding dependants, and proportion of appeals upheld by adjudicators at the IAA, by year

  Year

  Cases appealed

  Proportion of appeals won2(percentage)

  1995

  14,035

  3

  1996

  22,985

  4

  1997

  20,950

  6

  1998

  14,320

  9

  19993

  6,615

  27

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Appeals upheld as proportion of appeals determined in same year.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken for granting citizenship was in each of the last five years. [145713]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average time taken for granting citizenship in each of the last five years is shown in the table.
  614W
  2 Non-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period. From November 1991 these include refusals for failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity under the measures introduced then

  3Appeals received do not necessarily relate to decisions made in any given time period.

  Provisional information for the year 2000 will be published on 25 January 2001 on the Department's web site at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of asylum applications in each of the last five years resulted in(a) asylum status and (b) exceptional leave to remain after an initial decision; in each year how many cases were appealed and hat proportion of appeals were won by applicants; and if he will make a statement. [145714]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest information available is given in the tables.

  Provisional information for the year 2000 will be published on 25 January 2001 on the Home Department's website www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index/htm.

  Year

  Average time1

  1996

  13.4

  1997

  14.3

  1998

  18.2

  1999

  18.8

  2000

  16.8

  1 Months

  As at the current date the average time taken for granting citizenship has been further reduced, and is now at 13.1 months.

  Sewerage Costs (Home Office Estate)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the sewerage costs on the Home Office Estate in Denbury, South Devon, have increased in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [146680]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prior to the current financial year (2000 –01) a flat rate annual charge for sewerage costs was made which did not reflect the actual cost to the Prison Service of providing the service. The charge for this financial year is based on the rateable value of each property and is equivalent to the charge which would be made by the local water authority.

  Drugs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Police Foundation Inquiry's recommendations concerning the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [147053]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following the publication of the Police Foundation's report last year, the Home Office issued a statement rejecting the inquiry's recommendations for the reclassification of cannabis, cannabinols, Ecstasy or LSD. The report contains a large number of other recommendations and raises many issues. The United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was asked to chair a committee to consider these. The report of his committee's findings is currently with Ministers.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding UK domestic drug laws. [147054]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The only recent meeting with United States of America counterparts was in July 2000 when the Attorney-General, Janet Reno, visited London. She met with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but domestic drug laws were not discussed.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children made application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in each of the last five years. [146766]

  Property and vehicle crime in South Buckinghamshire and England and Wales

  Crimes per 1,000 population

  Property crime

  Vehicle crime

  Quarter ending

  South Buckinghamshire

  England and Wales

  South Buckinghamshire

  England and Wales

  December 1999

  22.9

  20.4

  8.7

  4.8

  March 2000

  26.2

  21.3

  12.2

  5.0

  June 2000

  24.3

  20.7

  9.1

  4.7

  September 2000

  25.4

  19.6

  8.7

  4.4

  Property crime comprises burglary, theft and handling (including vehicle crime), fraud and forgery, and criminal damage. The vehicle crime figures relate to theft of vehicles and theft from vehicles.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on detaining people in prison for immigration irregularities; and if he will make a statement. [145165]

  Mrs. Roche
  As far as possible, people detained under powers set out in the Immigration Act 1971 are held in discrete accommodation in Immigration Service detention
  616W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that the number of applications in respect of persons aged under 18 years at the date of application was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  11,969

  1996–97

  11,187

  1997–98

  11,216

  1998–99

  10,454

  1999–2000

  10,583

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid out in compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority(a) in total and (b) on average to each applicant (i) in 2000 and (ii) in 1995. [146765]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]In 1995–96, the total compensation paid was £179 million and the average award was £4.066. In 1999–2000, the total compensation paid was £206 million and the average award was £4,738.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the monthly rates are of(a) property and (b) car crime (i) nationally and (ii) in the South Buckinghamshire District Council in the latest year for which figures are available. [146995]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]Details for the year ending September 2000 for property crime and vehicle crime are given in the table. Police force area figures, and therefore national figures, are collected quarterly, and these are compared with the equivalent South Buckinghamshire figures.

  centres or designated prison accommodation. A number are also held in prisons for reasons of geography or security (or control). For example convicted prisoners subject to deportation action at the end of their sentence may be held in prison pending their removal. However, use of detention centres is preferable to prisons in the vast majority of cases and, in principle, the Government prefer to use detention centres.

  In addition we are currently housing some immigration detainees in prisons on a short-term basis, to meet the shortfall in spaces in dedicated accommodation for immigration detainees. The Prison Service has made available up to 500 spaces for immigration detainees, pending the availability later this year of detention space in new immigration detention centres.

  Metropolitan Police
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians were employed by the Metropolitan police Service in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [144966]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]The data requested are in the table.

  Number of civilian staff employed by the Metropolitan police

  Number

  September 1995

  14,138

  September 1996

  13,890

  September 1997

  12,902

  September 1998

  12,033

  September 1999

  10,935

  September 2000

  10,147

  Note:

  The decrease in the number of civilians in the Metropolitan police is at least in part a result of administrative work being outsourced.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people within his Department work specifically on(a) science and technology matters, (b) competition and consumer offers, including energy, telecoms and environment, (c) trade and export, (d) manufacturing and (e) labour markets; and what is the total number of staff of his Department. [145209]

  Dr. Howells
  The total core Department of Trade and Industry staff as at 1 December 2000 is 6,736.

  The further disaggregated information is not held centrally within the Department in the format requested. However, the following split identifies the number of staff in the DTI Groups:

  Area

  Number of DTI staff

  Science and Technology

  133

  Competition and Markets Group

  2,478

  of which:

  Consumer Affairs

  88

  Competition Policy

  49

  Energy Group

  423

  Business Competitiveness Group

  679

  of which:

  Environment

  45

  Trade Policy Group

  305

  British Trade International

  650

  Enterprise and Innovation Group

  796

  Small Business Service

  219

  Legal Services Group

  144

  Resources and Services Group

  804

  Other staff (incl. Ministerial Parliamentary Support Team)

  105

  Total number of staff in core Department of Trade and Industry1,2

  6,736

  Engineering Industry (Skills Shortage)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to address skill shortages in the engineering industry. [146232]
  618W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The DTI, working in collaboration with the industry and with national training organisations such as EMTA, is supporting a number of initiatives to explore and address the skill needs of the engineering industry. For example, the Training Networks for Engineering Technicians Programme, worth £1 million, is bringing together networks of small firms to improve the technical and managerial skills of engineering technicians working in the manufacturing sector ranging across a wide variety of engineering areas, from automotive components to textiles to casting. Several activities are focused on tackling engineering skills shortages in IT, electronics and communications (ITEC) sectors. These include a work placement scheme for electronics engineering students, a project to look at the best way to train printed circuit board designers and a pilot programme to improve the skills of electronics teachers.

  In addition, DTI is involved, with DfEE, in major reforms that will support vocational training and boost the supply of engineers, notably setting up the learning and skills councils; a £100 million drive to set up vocational centres of excellence in further education colleges; and the strengthening of modern apprenticeships and national training organisations.

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the retail petrol stations which he has visited since January 2000 to discuss matters affecting their businesses; and if he will make a statement. [147046]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department keeps in touch regularly with representatives of the petrol retailing industry, and such discussions would include factors affecting business performance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the present policy of the EU is on vertical control in the retail motor fuels industry. [146975]

  Mrs. Liddell
  New EC competition rules covering supply and distribution agreements containing vertical restraints came into effect on 1 July 2000 (see Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2790–1999 of 22 December 1999 and Commission Notice 2000/C 291–01 of 13 October 2000). The new rules supersede previous sector-specific rules, including some which applied to the retail motor fuels industry.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what his policy is on vertical pricing control by oil companies in the retail motor fuels market; and if he will make a statement; [146969]

  (2) what is his policy on vertical control in the UK retail motor fuels industry. [146974]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and has power to act against harmful vertical agreements.

  The Director General of Fair Trading reported his conclusions concerning the wholesale petrol market on 21 November 2000. He found no evidence of anticompetitive behaviour but said that he will continue to monitor this market very closely.
  619W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet representatives of the retail petrol industry and oil companies to discuss a code of practice; and if he will make a statement. [146967]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for consumers and corporate affairs, will be meeting representatives of the independent petrol retail sector and oil companies shortly to discuss a code of practice.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the value and tax of the vapour which passes from retail petrol stations' tanks back into the fuel tanker when motor fuels are delivered is accounted for. [146972]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Evaporative losses occurring between loaded petrol from a storage terminal and delivering it to a retail site have been minimised by the use of vapour recovery systems. Under EC Directive 94/63/EC all storage and distribution terminals delivering more than 50,000 tonnes per annum of petrol already operate vapour recovery equipment, and all other terminals will have to comply by 2001 or 2004 (depending on the volume of their deliveries). In December 1996, the directive was implemented in England, Scotland and Wales through regulations and directions made under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is being implemented separately in Northern Ireland through the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

  Prior to this legislation, vapours will have been lost. These vapour losses were part of the delivered volume of petrol. The oil companies at the point at which oil leaves the refinery pay excise duty on mineral oils. As vapour recovery systems are put in place after the duty point, duty has been already paid on the vapour when it is delivered in a tank to the retail site. Since implementation of vapour recovery, vapours are returned to the delivery

  Generator

  Site Name/Location

  Capacity MW DNC

  Wales

  Scottish Power plc

  Moel Rhiwlug Wind Farm, Pentrefoelas, Clwyd

  8.278

  Scottish Power plc

  Llyn Alwen Wind Farm, Pentrefoelas, Clwyd

  8.278

  Renewable Energy Systems Ltd

  Mynydd Clogau Wind Farm, Nr Adfa, Newtown, Powys

  4.253

  South Wales Power Ltd/SWALEC

  Gelligaer 'A' Wind Farm, Mynydd Fochriw, Fochriw. Mid Glamorgan

  4.214

  South Wales Power Ltd/SWALEC

  Gelligaer 'B' Wind Farm, Mynydd Fochriw, Fochriw, Mid Glamorgan

  4.214

  National Wind Power Ltd

  Jordanston Wind Farm, Fishguard, Dyfed

  4.214

  National Wind Power Ltd

  Mynydd Yr Hendre Wind Farm, Cefn Coch, Newtown, Powys

  12.492

  Windjen Power Ltd

  Mynydd Glyn Lws Wind Farm, Betws yn Rhos, Colwyn Bay, Clwyd

  1.542

  Powergen Renewables Ltd

  Nant Carfan Wind Farm, Machynlleth, Powys

  8.951

  Cambrian Wind Energy Ltd

  Cefn Croes, Devils Bridge. Ceredigion, Dyfed

  16.555

  Windjen Power Ltd

  Tir Mostyn and Foel Goch, Nantglyn, Denbigh, Clwyd

  9.149

  Windjen Power Ltd

  Blaen Bowi Windcluster, Moelfre, Capel Iwan, Dyfed

  1.524

  Windjen Power Ltd

  Llethercynnon Farm, Nr Garthbrengy, Powys

  3.049

  Ecogen Ltd

  Blaencorrwg Wind Farm, Port Talbot, West Glamorgan

  8.303

  B W Ops Ltd

  Fforch, Nant Y Moel, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan

  0.937

  Three Way Wind Ltd

  Rhoscrowther Wind Cluster, Angle, Pembroke, Dyfed

  0.947

  Renewable Development Co Ltd

  Bryn Du, Bryn Du Hills, South Of A44 At Pont Rydgaled, Powys

  7.059

  England

  Ecogen Ltd

  Humble Hill Wind Farm, Humble Hill, Kielder Forest, Hexham, Northumberland

  33.746

  Econet Ltd

  Stockton Wind Turbine, East of Layden Lane Track, Norwich, Norfolk

  0.632

  Econet Ltd

  Brundish Wind Turbine, East of Brandish Road, Stockton, Beccles, Suffolk

  0.632

  620W
  tanker. These are not accounted for as they represent less than 0.2 per cent. of delivered volume and consist mainly of butane rather than petrol.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate in percentage terms the amount of electricity generated from(a) onshore windfarms, (b) offshore windfarms, (c) tidal generation, (d) hydro-electric generation and (e) biomass generation for (i) Wales, (ii) England and (iii) Scotland. [146475]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is as follows and relates to 1999. Information on electricity generation is not available separately for Wales and England and so separate percentages cannot be calculated. However, it is estimated that about 60 per cent. of onshore wind generation in England and Wales was in Wales, over 85 per cent. of hydro generation in England and Wales was in Wales, but less than 1 per cent. of generation from biomass in England and Wales was in Wales. There was no tidal or offshore wind generation in 1999.

  Percentage of total electricity generation from each renewable source

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Onshore wind

  0.2

  0.3

  Hydro electricity

  0.1

  10.4

  Biomass

  1.2

  0.1

  Source:

  DTI and ETSU estimates

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of pending applications for windfarm developments in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland, giving their (i) location and (ii) proposed output in Kw hours. [146474]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A list of proposed windfarm developments awaiting planning decisions is provided in the table. Declared net capacity in MW is provided for each proposal, since this rather than projected output is the basis on which NFFO and SRO contracts are awarded.
  621W

  Generator

  Site Name/Location

  Capacity MW DNC

  Farm Energy Ltd

  Outstray Farm Wind Project, Sunk Island, Humberside

  0.765

  Wind Prospect Ltd

  Coldham, Cws Coldham Estate, March, Cambridgeshire

  0.843

  Wind Prospect Ltd

  Sears, Sears Farm, Manea, Cambridgeshire

  0.843

  Wind Prospect Ltd

  Honey Hill, Honey Hill Farm, Chatteris, Cambridgeshire

  0.843

  Anglian Water Engineering Services Ltd

  Mablethorpe STW, Mile Road, Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire

  0.256

  Border Wind Ltd

  Holmside Hall, Burnhope, Stanley, County Durham

  0.962

  Border Wind Ltd

  Hedley Hope, High Hedley Farm, Tow Law, Bishop Auckland, County Durham

  0.962

  Westmill Wind Ltd

  Westmill Windcluster, Watchfield Airfield, Watchfield, Swindon, Wiltshire

  0.636

  The Old Racecourse Windfarm Ltd

  The Old Racecourse, Bratton Fleming, North Devon

  0.947

  Three Way Wind Ltd

  Hore Down Windfarm, Ilfracombe, North Devon

  0.947

  Scotland

  PowerGen

  Roughside Hill, Peebles, Borders

  6.17

  PowerGen

  Eredine Forest, Loch Awe/Loch Fyne, Argyll

  6.17

  PowerGen

  An Suidhe, Eredine Forest, Loch Awe/Loch Fyne, Argyll

  6.17

  Renewable Energy Systems

  Meikle Carewe, Rickarton Farms, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

  5.740

  Renewable Energy Systems

  Ark Hill, Chamberwells, Glamis, Tayside

  5.100

  Her R Von Pezold

  Meall Mhor Wind Farm, Kintarbert, Argyll

  0.960

  Fivestone Ltd

  Hill of Lybster, Forss, Caithness

  0.850

  Ecogen

  Little Kilmain, East Ayrshire

  0.960

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate in percentage terms the amount of electricity generated from all renewable sources in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland. [146476]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information on electricity generation is not available separately for Wales and England and so separate percentages cannot be calculated. In England and Wales together in 1999 it is estimated that about 1.5 per cent. of electricity was generated from renewable sources, and in Scotland about 10.8 per cent. In the UK as a whole 2.8 per cent. of electricity generation was from renewable sources.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to support the development of biomass energy. [146472]

  Mrs. Liddell
  To date, the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and the Scottish Renewables Orders (SRO) have been the chief means through which the Government have stimulated the development of renewable energy capacity in the UK. In total 32 biomass projects, totalling 255 MW capacity, have received NFFO/SRO contracts. To date, seven of these projects, with a total capacity of 72 MW have been commissioned. These include the Arbre (8 MW short rotation coppice) and Ely (36 MW straw) power plants.

  The Government are currently considering the responses to the recent preliminary consultation on the renewables obligation. The obligation is the key mechanism for achieving the UK target of 10 per cent. of electricity being supplied from renewables in 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. It is proposed that biomass will be an eligible source of renewable electricity under the obligation. The Government are also analysing responses

  Genrator

  Site name/Location

  MW DNC

  Output

  Wales

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Mynydd Cemmaes, Cwith-Lliniad, Powys

  3.096

  —

  Ecogen

  Penrhyddlan Windfarm, Llandinam, Powys

  5.325

  —

  Ecogen

  Llidiartywaun Windfarm, Llandinam, Powys

  7.43

  —

  Ecogen

  Rhyd-y-Groes 1 and 2, Rhosgoch, Anglesey, Gwynedd

  3.591

  —

  622W
  to the consultation on the new opportunities fund proposals for £50 million capital grants to bring forward early energy crop and offshore wind projects. In addition, the Government are proposing to exempt electricity from renewable sources, other than large-scale hydro, from the climate change levy. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also announced support of £30 million over seven years towards establishment grants for short rotation coppice and miscanthus and aid to help short rotation coppice growers establish producer groups.

  The Department's new and renewable energy programme has allocated a budget of £2 million in 2000–01 to support biomass research and development projects. This is expected to rise to £2.8 million in 2001–02. Priority areas for biomass projects are the supply chains for energy crops and agricultural and forestry residues and the adoption of advanced technologies for the conversion of biomass into electricity and heat.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity generated in each of the county council areas in Wales was from renewable sources. [146477]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information at country council area level is not centrally available and could not be collected without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list of all windfarm sites in operation in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland, giving their (i) location and (ii) output in Kw hours. [146473]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A list of windfarm sites in operation is provided in the table. Declared net capacity in MW is shown for each site and annual output in Kw hours where figures are available.
  623W

  Genrator

  Site name/Location

  MW DNC

  Output

  East Midlands Electricity Ltd.

  Taff-Ely Wind Farm, Mid Glamorgan

  3.842

  —

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Llangwyryfon Windfarm, Dyfed

  2.58

  —

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Bryn Titli: Windfarm (Marchi), Rhayader, Powys

  4.257

  —

  New World Power Company (Dyffryn Brodyn)

  Dyffryn-Brodyn, Blaenwaun, Whitland, Dyfed

  2.348

  —

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Mynydd Gorddu Wind Farm, Elerch, Tal-y-Bont, Ceredigion, Dyfed

  4.18

  28,835,026

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Carno 'A' Windfarm, Cwm Cledan, Carno, Powys

  6.321

  34,081,715

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Llanbabo Wind Farm, Llyn Alaw, Anglesey, Gwynedd

  9.181

  51,821,038

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Trysglwyn Windfarm, Trysglywn Fawr, Rhosbol, Anglesey, Gwynedd

  2.36

  14,834,504

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Carno 'B' Windfarm, Cwm Cledan, Carno. Powys

  6.321

  34,518,238

  Powergen plc

  Rheidol Windfarm, Bane Bwa Drain, Goginan, Aberystwyth, Dyfed

  1.001

  6,336,316

  Wind Energy Group Ltd.

  Mynydd Glandulas Wind Farm, Pantperthog, Machynlleth, Powys

  0.119

  334,720

  Huw Smallwood

  Hafotty Ucha Wind Farm, Near Cerrig-y-Drudion, Clwyd

  0.257

  1,692,000

  England

  Wood Green Enterprises Ltd.

  Kings Bush Farm, Godmanchester, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

  0.097

  —

  Powergen plc

  Richborough Power Station, Richborough, Kent

  0.43

  —

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Kirkby Moor, Nr. Ulverston, Cumbria

  1.935

  —

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

  Chelker, Skipton Road, Addingham, Ilkley, West Yorkshire

  0.516

  —

  Yorkshire Windpower Ltd.

  Thornton, Oxenhope, Keighley, Denholme, West Yorkshire

  3.87

  —

  Windelectric Ltd.

  Deli, Nr Delabole, Cornwall

  1.72

  —

  Fivestone Ltd.

  St. Marys Road, Ramsey, Cambridgeshire

  0.095

  —

  Border Wind Ltd.

  Blyth Harbour, Northumberland

  1.13

  —

  Beacon Energy Ltd.

  Orton Airport, Wiggonby, Cumbria

  1.29

  —

  Century Steels Ltd.

  Century Works, Penistone, South Yorkshire

  0.083

  —

  Cornwall Light and Power Company Ltd.

  Goonhilly Downs Wind Farm, Cury, Helston, Cornwall

  2.348

  —

  D. Gillson and Son (Haworth) Ltd.

  Naylor Hill Quarry, Howarth, Keighley, West Yorkshire

  0.095

  —

  The New World Power Company (Four Burrows) Ltd.

  Four Burrows, Blackwater, Truro, Cornwall

  2.002

  —

  Ecogen

  St. Breock, St. Breock Downs, Cornwall

  2.127

  —

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Cold Northcott Windfarm, Launceston, Cornwall

  2.826

  —

  Euros Power Ltd.

  Blood Hill, Winterton-on-Sea, Norfolk

  0.946

  —

  Renewable Energy Systems Ltd.

  Carland Cross Wind Farm, Mitchell, Cornwall

  2.535

  —

  Renewable Energy Systems Ltd.

  Coal Clough Farm, Cornholme, West Yorkshire

  4.055

  —

  J. Stobart and Sons Ltd.

  J. Stobbart and Sons, Heskett—1, Wigton, Cumbria

  0.251

  —

  J. Stobart and Sons Ltd.

  J. Stobbart and Sons, Heskett—2 (Combined with 98), Wigton, Cumbria

  0

  —

  New World Power Company (Caton Moor) LTD.

  Caton Moor, Lancaster, Lancashire

  1.677

  —

  West Beacon Farm Power

  West Beacon Farm, Woodhouse Eaves, Loughborough, Leicestershire

  0.022

  —

  Windcluster (Haverigg) Ltd.

  Haverigg, Kirkstanston Airfield, Millon, Cumbria

  0.478

  —

  Yorkshire Water Services

  Royd Moor Farm, Thurlstone, Penistone, South Yorkshire

  2.492

  —

  Powergen plc

  Far Old Park Farm, Ireleth, Askam-in-Furness, Cumbria

  2.303

  11,099,923

  Windprospect

  Oldside Wind Farm, Workington, Cumbria

  2.303

  14,424,381

  Windprospect

  Siddick Wind Farm, Workington, Cumbria

  1.791

  10,346,130

  Windprospect

  Lowca Wind Farm, Lowca, Nr Workington, Cumbria

  2.047

  4,480,281

  Windcluster Ltd.

  Royal Seaforth Dock Wind Farm, Port of Liverpool, Bootle, Sefton, Liverpool, Merseyside

  1.535

  9,391,256

  Western Windpower

  Lynch Knoll Wind Farm, Partfield Farm, Tinkley Lane, Nympsfield, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire

  0.213

  1,022,285

  Border Wind Ltd.

  Great Eppleton Farm, North Lane, Hetton le Hole, Tyne and Wear

  1.277

  4,984,237

  Windprospect

  Kirkstanton Airfield, Hemplands Farm, Haverigg, Nr Millom, Cumbria

  1.023

  5,334,730

  Cumbria Wind Farms Ltd.

  Great Orton Wind Farm, Great Orton Airfield, Great Orton, Nr Wiggonby, Carlisle Cumbria

  1.018

  4,278,972

  Farm Energy Ltd.

  Harlock Hill Wind Farm, Pennington, Nr Ulverston, Cumbria

  1.488

  5.471,970

  Econet Ltd.

  Bood Hill Wind Turbine, Somerton, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

  0.632

  497,747

  Western Windpower

  Ecotech WTG, East of West Acre Road, Swaffham, Norfolk

  0.632

  3,844,038

  Border Wind Ltd.

  Kirkheaton Wind Farm, West Farm, Kirkheaton, Northumberland

  0.768

  536,033

  Cumbria Wind Farms Ltd.

  East Town End Farm, Winscales, Workington, Cumbria

  0.845

  3,795,092

  Cumbria Wind Farms Ltd.

  Great Orton, Near Carlisle, Cumbria

  0.845

  1,980,823

  Scotland

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Gallow Rig Windfarm, Windy Standard, Carsphairn, Gallow Rig, Kirkcudbrightshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  4.21

  28,457,922

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Beinn Ghlas Windfarm, Cairn Gaibhre, Beinn Ghlas, Argyll

  3.37

  19,453,190

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Bendealt Windfarm, Novar Estate, Evanton, Ross and Cromarty, Highlands

  3.79

  25,167.064

  National Wind Power Ltd.

  Meall an Tuirc Windfarm, Novar Estate, Evanton, Ross and Cromarty, Highlands

  3.37

  20,900,784

  National Wind Power Ltd./Fred Olsen Ltd

  Polwhat Rig Windfarm, Windy Standard, Carsphairn, Gallow Rig, Kirkcudbrightshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  4.21

  30,161,386

  Scottish Power Technology Wind Farm Operations and Maintenance

  Hagshaw Hill Wind Farm (S10), Douglas, Lanarkshire

  2.12

  16,681,722

  Scottish Power Technology Wind Farm Operations and Maintenance

  Hagshaw Hill Wind Farm (SI5), Douglas, Lanarkshire

  4.06

  10,595,141

  Renewable Energy Systems

  Dun Law, Borders

  8.290

  5,237,200

  NEG Mikon (UK) Ltd.

  Thorfin Wind Farm, Burgar Hill, Orkney

  0.980

  2,055,275

  624W 625W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect the fall in electricity forward agreement wholesale generation prices will have on the additional costs of the Government's renewables obligation; and if he will make a statement. [146744]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The DTI consultation document issued in October 2000 estimated that the cost of the renewables obligation would be up to £600 million by 2010. This represents about 3.7 per cent. of the total amount paid by all electricity consumers in Great Britain in 1998.

  Our proposals for the obligation include a buy-out price which would limit the absolute cost (in £ millions) of the obligation to electricity consumers. Our current proposal for that buy-out price (3 p/kWh) was made against the background of wholesale generation prices being expected to be around 2 p/kWh, broadly equivalent to the current price in forward markets.

  Ceramics Industry
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he has taken and what resources are available to support exports of ceramics from the United Kingdom. [146573]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ceramics manufacturers benefit from the general support provided by Trade Partners UK for trade missions and groups at overseas trade events. A number of specific missions and events are regularly supported in the building and construction and giftware sectors, both of which cover ceramics.

  One such mission to Japan, including ceramics companies, was supported in the current financial year and five missions in the sectors including ceramics are planned for 2001–02, in addition to a mission to Vietnam, which will be dedicated to ceramics and sponsored by the North Staffordshire chamber of commerce. Nineteen groups at exhibitions and seminars in the sectors including ceramics were supported in 2000–01, at a cost of £884,435 and there are plans to support a further 22 such events in 2001–02, at a projected cost of £1,115,220. It is not possible to break these figures down to identify the number of companies in ceramics sub-sectors supported in these events.

  Among the export promoters currently seconded from industry to Trade Partners UK to assist British companies seeking to export, one has a portfolio that includes giftware and seven the building and construction sector.

  Miners (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many offers have been made between(a) £3,000 to £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £7,000, (c) £7,001 to £10,000 and (d) over £10,000 following the setting of revised financial limits under the fast-track procedures of the emphysema and chronic bronchitis compensation scheme for ex-miners. [146574]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the fast-track procedures I announced at the end of September last year, the Department has made 15,247 revised and new offers, totalling some £83.7 million. These are broken down as follows.
  626W

  Offer amount

  Number of offers

  Less than £3,000

  3,672

  £3,001 to £5,000

  4,588

  £5,001 to £7,000

  2,602

  £7,001 to £10,000

  2,776

  Over £10,000

  1,608

  In total, the Department has now made over 71,600 individual payments, including interim and full and final settlements, to claimants in respect of compensation for respiratory and vibration-related diseases, totalling some £320 million. The Department is now paying out around £1 million per day in compensation.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of valid invoices have been paid by the Small Business Service within 30 days in each quarter since April 2000. [146501]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been informed by David Irwin, Chief Executive of the Small Business Service that the information requested is as follows:

  Per cent.

  April-June

  97

  July-September

  97

  October-December

  99

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of letters the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service has replied to within 10 working days in each quarter since April 2000. [146510]

  Mr. Byers
  I am informed by David Irwin, Chief Executive of the Small Business Service, that the details are as follows:

  Quarter

  Per cent, of all letters replied to within 10 days

  April-June 2000

  96

  July-September 2000

  86

  October-December 2000

  91

  Electricity
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what change in electricity forward agreement wholesale generation prices has occurred since the intention to implement new electricity trading arrangements was announced in the October 1998 Energy White Paper. [146742]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Prices in the electricity pool were around 2.5p/KWh in the period leading up to the White Paper. At that time trading in the electricity forward agreement (EFA) market was very limited, with no established price reporting. EFA prices and pool prices are not strictly comparable since the balance of risks associated with trading EFAs is different to that arising from exposure to pool prices.
  627W
  Price reporting of EFA markets emerged during 1999 as trading volumes rose. In mid-l999, one-year forward contracts to supply baseload electricity from October 1999 were trading at about 2.4p/KWh. Currently, prices to supply baseload electricity for one year from April 2001 are about 2.0p/KWh. This is a fall of around 17 per cent. in cash terms and 21 per cent. in real terms from 1999.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have accessed his Department's website concerning firework safety. [146682]

  Dr. Howells
  The DTI's fireworks safety schools website achieved over 1,500 visits between October 2000 and early January 2001. Other DTI websites that provide information on fireworks are the consumer affairs and home safety network sites. Information on visits to the latter two sites cannot be broken down separately into fireworks alone.

  Coal Industry (State Aid)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on coal supply contracts that contain provisions for adjustment in coal prices in the event of state aid being paid; and if he will make a statement. [146752]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK coal operating aid scheme, as notified to the Commission on 26 July 2002, explained that subsidy will not be available in respect of any contracts which replace contracts that have been cancelled or re-negotiated because of Government policy on coal State aid unless that cancellation or renegotiation was expressly permitted by a clause in the existing contract.

  In a letter dated 21 November 2000 to coal producers who have expressed an interest in the scheme (and published on the DTI website) www.dti.gov.uk/support/coal.htm, the Department also explained that:
  Any contract [signed on or after 1 January 2000] containing terms which are conditional or otherwise linked (in any way) to:

  (a) the 1PP to be determined by the Panel in respect of that particular contract;

  (b) the IPP to be determined by the Panel in respect of any other contract; or

  (c) the IPP published in respect of any other contract;

  will automatically be disqualified from consideration under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme.

  I have received no representations on either of these provisions, although there have been inquiries about how they will be operated.

  Government Chemist Report
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the 2000 Annual report of the Government Chemist; and if he will make a statement. [147369]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have just received the fourth annual report of the Government Chemist and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures are in place to check that contracts being considered for Export Credits Guarantee Department support are subject to competitive tendering. [145470]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has no procedures for checking that contracts considered for support have been won as a result of competitive tendering, as it is not a requirement of its support that contracts be awarded as the result of such a process.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the United Kingdom companies that received support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the(a) last and (b) current financial year to date. [145471]

  Mr. Caborn
  The lists do not include the many UK subcontractors who will have benefited from ECGD cover provided to a UK main contractor or to a bank which makes payment to a number of UK exporters on behalf of overseas buyers. They do, however, include the UK branches of overseas companies who have been the beneficiaries of ECGD guarantees.

  UK companies that have received ECGD cover in 1999–2000

  ABC International Bank Plc

  ABN Amro Bank NV

  AF-QPS Ltd.

  AGCO Ltd.

  Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd.

  Alstom Automation International Ltd.

  Alstom Power Plants Ltd.

  Alstom Power Plants Services Ltd.

  Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  Alstom UK Ltd.

  Amec International Construction Ltd.

  Amec Plc

  Anglian Water Plc

  Anzef Ltd.

  Arab Bank Plc

  Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.

  Babcock International Group Public Ltd. Company

  BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.

  BAE Systems Plc

  Balfour Beatty Construction International Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Group Ltd.

  Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association

  Bank of China

  Bankgesellschaft Berlin AG

  Barclays Bank Plc

  Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale.

  Bechtel Ltd.

  BICC General UK Cables Ltd.

  BNP Paribas

  Boss Group Ltd.

  Bostock & Bramley Transmission Ltd.

  British Arab Commercial Bank Ltd

  British Gas Exploration and Production Ltd.

  Brooke Industrial Holdings Plc

  Carmichael Holdings Ltd.

  629W

  Chase Manhattan Bank

  Chase Manhattan International Ltd.

  CIBC World Markets Plc

  Citibank International Plc

  Citibank N.A.

  Commerzbank AG

  Construction Machinery Supplies (UK) Ltd.

  Credit Agricole Indosuez.

  Credit Lyonnais

  Denge Ltd.

  Dennis (Malaysia) Ltd.

  Deutsche Bank AG

  Devoran Engineering Ltd

  Dresdner Bank AG.

  Duco Ltd.

  Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd.

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  ERF Ltd.

  European Marine Contractors Ltd.

  FIN Machine Company Ltd. (the)

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  GEI Processing & Packaging Machinery Ltd.

  GKN Export Services Ltd.

  GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd.

  Gulf International Bank Bsc

  Halcrow Holdings Ltd.

  Halifax Plc

  Hamburgische Landesbank-Girozentrale

  Heaton Power Ltd.

  Hengelmolen Engineering Ltd.

  HSBC Bank Plc

  HSBC Investment Bank Plc

  Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd.

  John Reid & Sons (Strucsteel) Ltd.

  Kleinwort Benson Ltd.

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Lagan Holdings Ltd.

  Land Rover Exports Ltd.

  Leyland Exports Ltd.

  Lloyds TSB Bank Plc

  Lodgewood Construction Ltd.

  Mabey & Johnson Ltd.

  Marconi Communications International Ltd.

  Marconi Corporation Plc

  Marconi Radar Projects Ltd.

  Matra BAE Dynamics (UK) Ltd.

  Mesco(UK) Ltd.

  Midco International (WA)

  Miller Group Ltd.

  Ministry of Defence

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Motherwell Bridge Projects Ltd.

  National Westminster Bank Plc

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale

  Novara Plc

  NSG Exports Ltd.

  O.M.K. Design Ltd.

  Odebrecht Oil And Gas Services Ltd.

  630W

  Omega Foundry Machinery Ltd.

  Park Air Electronics Ltd.

  Parker Plant Ltd.

  Pegson Ltd.

  Powergen UK plc

  Purac Ltd.

  PW Group Ltd.

  PW Ltd.

  R-B International Plc

  Radial Ltd.

  Ralph Martindale & Co. Ltd.

  Rendel Palmer & Tritton Plc

  Riverhead International Construction Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Plc

  Royal Ordnance Plc

  Rugby Group Plc (the)

  Salbeck Ltd.

  SAS International Ltd.

  Shell International Ltd

  Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd.

  Skanska Africa Ltd.

  Societe Generale

  Specialist Vehicles Ltd.

  Standard Chartered Bank

  Strachan Henshaw Machinery Ltd.

  Tandberg Television Ltd.

  Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd.

  Taylor Woodrow International Ltd.

  Telematics Internatioral Ltd.

  Thermo Black Clawson Ltd.

  Trade Credit Finance (no.2) Ltd.

  Trane (United Kingdom) Ltd.

  Universal Advanced Technology Ltd.

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Various

  Vickers Engineering Plc

  Volvo Bus Exports (UK) Ltd.

  Waterhouse-Parker & Co. Ltd.

  Weir Westgarth Ltd.

  Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale

  William Cook Burton Ltd.

  Woldtare Export Ltd.

  UK companies that have received ECGD cover in the current financial year to date—(2000–01 to 31 December 2000)

  ABN Amro Bank NV

  Aeromatic-fielder Ltd.

  Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd.

  Alstom Controls Ltd.

  Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  Alstom Traction Ltd.

  Alstom UK Ltd.

  Amec International Construction Ltd.

  Amec Plc

  Angloco Ltd.

  Anzef Ltd.

  Arab Bank Plc

  631W

  Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.

  BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Construction International Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Group Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty International Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Projects & Engineering Ltd.

  Bank of America International Ltd.

  Bank of China

  Bankgesellschaft Berlin AG

  Barclays Bank Plc

  Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG

  Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale.

  Bice Supertension Cables (1980) Ltd.

  BNP Paribas

  British Mediterranean Airways Ltd.

  Chiyoda-Foster Wheeler Partnership

  Citibank International Plc

  Citibank N.A.

  Corus UK Ltd.

  Credit Agricole Indosuez.

  Credit Lyonnais

  Cruickshanks Ltd.

  Deutsche Bank AG

  Dresser Kellogg Energy Services Ltd.

  DSD Dillinger Engineering And Construction Great Britain Ltd.

  Duco Ltd.

  Duple (Metsec) Ltd.

  Enrico Ltd.

  European Marine Contractors Ltd.

  Fairbank Brearley Ltd.

  Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd.

  Flightlease Holdings (Guernsey) Ltd.

  Gall Thomson Environmental Plc

  Gateway (Textiles) Ltd.

  Halcrow Group Ltd.

  Halifax Plc

  Howden Sirocco Ltd.

  HSBC Bank Plc

  HSBC Investment Bank Plc

  Kier Group Plc

  Kier International Ltd.

  Kier/Mabey (Kingston) Joint Venture

  Kleinwort Benson Ltd.

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Lagan Holdings Ltd.

  Lloyds TSB Bank Plc

  Mabey & Johnson Ltd.

  Mabey Holdings Ltd.

  Marconi Communications International Ltd.

  Marconi Corporation Plc

  Miller Group Ltd.

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Mivan Kier Joint Venture Ltd.

  Monarch Airlines Ltd.

  Motherwell Bridge Engineering Ltd.

  Motherwell Bridge Holdings Ltd.

  National Westminster Bank Plc

  NSG Exports Ltd.

  Riverhead International Construction Ltd.

  632W

  Rolls-Royce Plc

  Rolls-Royce Power Ventures (Meghna) Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Power Ventures Ltd.

  Saipem UK Ltd.

  Sir William Halcrow & Partners Ltd.

  Societe Generale

  Sonsub Ltd.

  Specialist Vehicles Ltd.

  Stadco Ltd.

  Standard Chartered Bank

  Thales Training & Simulation Ltd.

  Thames Water Overseas Ltd.

  Universal Advanced Technology Ltd.

  VA Tech Reyrolle Projects Ltd.

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Volvo Bus Exports (UK) Ltd.

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd.

  Weatherwise Ltd.

  Weir Westgarth Ltd.

  William Hare Ltd.

  York International Ltd.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has made a decision on the future of the Insolvency Service. [147366]

  Dr. Howells
  The first stage of the Insolvency Service's quinquennial review has now been completed. I am pleased to say that the review found the Insolvency Service customer-focused and responsive. The standard of the service's work has improved significantly and is well regarded. The service has exceeded or met most of its performance objectives. It has contributed to the achievement of wider Government objectives and is effective in providing policy advice to Ministers. Its standards of customer service are very high. The service has taken a proactive approach to customer satisfaction with many initiatives to identify and meet customer needs. This has been recognised by awards including Chartermark, Investors in People and Plain Language Commission accreditation for its leaflets.

  The Insolvency Service will continue as an executive agency of the DTI. The current functions of the service form a coherent block that benefit from being managed as a whole. The review found that agency status was widely thought to have worked well.

  Customer needs and continuing efficiency will remain priorities for the service and will be taken forward in response to the Government's modernising agenda. The review supports the service in meeting these objectives by making recommendations relating to options for funding, benchmarking, selective tendering, reorganisation, and clarifying its advisory role. These include:
  Reviewing The Service's current funding regime to establish the most appropriate means of financing and delivering future services to the benefit of customers.

  633W
  Identifying benchmarking partners to ensure The Service's operations continue to offer quality and cost-effective services.
  Through selective tendering inviting private sector partners to carry out some of the service's investigation work relating to potential director disqualification.
  Addressing issues of recruitment and retention by investigating the scope for centralising some administrative functions in areas of lower growth and high unemployment, taking advantage of IT and modern communications technology. Reviewing the scope for using new technology to reduce the costs of accommodation, achieve economies of scale in administrative work and at the same time get closer to customers by remote working and the establishment of regional centres of expertise.
  Working to ensure the service's role in the area of advice to business and individuals is appropriately defined and joined up with those who already provide this advice in government and elsewhere.
  Continued development of the service's research function to enhance policy advice and operational strategy.
  Reviewing the continuing need for the Secretary of State (rather than authorised professional bodies) to authorise individual Insolvency Practitioners, thereby freeing the service to oversee the regulatory framework for Insolvency Practitioners and effectiveness of their Recognised Professional Bodies.

  Stage 2 of the review is now starting and will consider whether any changes should be made to the way in which the Insolvency Service operates, including its aims and objectives, targets and financial controls.

  Nursling Power Station
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a decision on the mini-power station at Nursling, near Southampton. [147367]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under section 14 (1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Nursling Generating Ltd. to build a 49 MWe gas-fired power station at Nursling, near Southampton.

  The developer has been exploring with interested parties the application of the heat from it for a community heating scheme supplying the Millbrook area of Southampton where it could provide heat for council housing, schools and local businesses and is committed to facilitating that.

  The proposal is fully consistent with the new requirement that developers considering new power station proposals explore opportunities to use combined heat and power (CHP) and energy policy clearance has therefore been given. CHP can make a major contribution to reducing emissions as well as bringing other benefits such as increased efficiency.

  Copies of the press notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to assist small businesses with management and ITC needs; and in what ways these will help small businesses in Coventry. [146334]

  Ms Hewitt
  The SBS provides business support, advice, or access to experts, through the Business Link partnerships on every aspect of support a person might need to run their own business, including: management; innovation and technology; business planning; exporting;634W
  quality; employment issues; training and development; design; information and communication technology and e-commerce.

  Business Link Coventry and Warwickshire was successful in bidding to deliver a service in the Coventry and Warwickshire area and are currently developing a business plan for approval.

  Improved management skills are a recognised requirement among a large number of businesses and a range of support and initiatives are available in Coventry through the Business Link and its partners. ICT services figure prominently in the BL plan. Building on the DTI's UK Online for Business development, they currently have a network of UK4B centres in the area, including Coventry. This support will cover ICT needs for the day to day running of a business and explore the potential for E Commerce.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the MOX fuel assemblies owned by the Swiss nuclear company NOK are to be re-imported into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [146902]

  (2) if the MOX fuel assemblies at Pruessen Electra's Unterwesen Reactor are to be re-imported into the United Kingdom following its closure; and if he will make a statement. [146903]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is responsible for the shipment of Belgonucleaire/Cogema manufactured mixed oxide fuel to Japan. [146904]

  Mrs. Liddell
  BNFL is jointly responsible, along with the French company COGEMA, for the sea transport for Belgonucleaire/Cogema manufactured mixed oxide fuel to Japan.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has secured for the supply of mixed oxide fuel since June 1999. [146906]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Contracts and contracted terms between BNFL and its customers for the supply of goods and services are commercial matters for the parties concerned.

  Everything but Arms Initiative
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much sugar by weight and value was exported from each nation covered by the Everything But Arms proposals to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union. [146414]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]EU tariffs on imports of sugar are set at a prohibitively high level. Although they have been progressively decreasing as a result of the Uruguay round, additional safeguard duties ensure that imports cannot undercut the EU support price. Therefore the vast majority of sugar from developing countries that does enter the EU does so in the form of duty-free quotas under two preferential
  635W
  arrangements, the sugar protocol and the special preferential sugar arrangement. The sugar protocol quotas are fixed, the special preferential sugar quotas vary annually.

  Of the 48 least developed countries (LDCs) that stand to benefit from the LDC market access proposal, only four have quotas for sugar under these two schemes, as follows:

  Tonnes

  Sugar protocol

  Special preferential sugar (2000–01)

  Madagascar

  10,760

  1,606

  Malawi

  20,824

  13,109

  Tanzania

  10,186

  1,521

  Zambia

  —

  11,707

  Uganda1

  —

  —

  Total

  41,770

  27,943

  1 Uganda is a signatory to the protocol but does not have a quota. This is so that if the other signatories are unable to fill their quotas, Uganda can be invited to make up the shortfall.

  Thus the total amount of sugar imported into the EU from LDCs is some 70,000 tonnes, or 0.004 per cent. of total EU production of 17,680,000 tonnes (1999–2000).

  As for value, there are guaranteed minimum prices for imports of sugar under both these access arrangements related to EU intervention prices. However it is difficult to be precise across the whole of the EU, since importers may (and some do) pay a premium on top of the guaranteed price. This is a commercial decision for the importers and companies concerned. As an indication, the world sugar price (based on spot prices for 18 January 2001) is some 264 euros per tonne, raw and white. EU intervention prices are 646 euros per tonne for white sugar (UK) and 524 euros per tonne for raw sugar, about two and a half times the world price.

  The UK (Tate and Lyle) takes about 64 per cent. of all cane imported into the EU for refining.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which non-Everything But Arms countries sugar can be imported into an EBA nation and then re-exported to the European Union at the EBA tariff rate. [146399]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]None, legally. The EU's "Rules of Origin", which apply to those developing countries eligible for trade preferences under the EU's generalised system of preferences (GSP) scheme, preclude this type of carousel trade.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has mate of the length of delays in matters being listed for hearing at tribunals concerning claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit; and if he will make a statement. [145754]
  636W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is as follows:

  The average time for an industrial injuries disablement benefit appeal to reach first hearing

  Weeks

  Average time between lodgement by the appellant and first hearing

  1/10/97 to 30/09/98

  35.7

  1/10/98 to 30/09/99

  35.9

  1/10/99 to 30/09/2000

  30.8

  Notes:

  1. Figures from the GAPS system are subject to updating on a quarterly basis and may differ from previously published figures.

  2. Figures are provisional and may be subject to revision.

  3. The overall average waiting time has improved in the period of 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000 following the introduction of the new arrangements for decision making and appeals.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS)

  Child Support
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the new child support scheme indicates the categories of expenditure covered by the Child Support Agency maintenance payment. [146121]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 99W.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons pensioner families in the top income decile are eligible for the minimum income guarantee, as indicated in chart 5.3 of the latest Pre-Budget report. [146345]

  Mr. Rooker
  Entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) is determined on a Benefit Unit basis and hence it is possible for pensioners with MIG entitlement to live with others who have incomes sufficiently high to place the household in the top decile. Chart 5.3 in the latest pre-Budget report measures income gains by household equivalised income. This definition means that income is equivalised across all members of the household.

  Pensioners (Australia)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 260W, concerning pensioners with a period of residence in Australia, when the arrangements to protect their position will be put in place; what the arrangements will be; and what steps will be taken to notify people with periods of residence after 5 April 2001. [146391]

  Mr. Rooker
  Arrangements are in place to protect the basic state pension position of people with periods of residence in Australia, which began during the currency
  637W
  of the Social Security Agreement with Australia, on their return to live permanently in the United Kingdom. The arrangements are that these people can use periods of residence in Australia up to 5 April 2001 as periods for which National Insurance contributions have been paid. The termination of the Agreement has been publicised in the media and in leaflets.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 283W, on Disability Living Allowance, what information is collated by his Department; and if he will publish it. [146703]

  Whole-time jobs by DSS Agency and Location

  Agency

  Newcastle

  Durham

  Wearside

  South Tyneside

  Longbenton

  Arden House, Newcastle

  Grand total

  31 March 2000

  BA

  183

  109

  22

  166

  3,996

  131

  4,607

  ITSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  529

  —

  529

  DSSHQ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  146

  —

  146

  CSA

  —

  —

  —

  27

  744

  —

  771

  WPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Grand total

  183

  109

  22

  193

  5,415

  135

  6,057

  31 March 1999

  BA

  181

  114

  22

  167

  3,882

  90

  4,456

  CA

  —

  —

  —

  37

  3,728

  —

  3,765

  ITSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  530

  —

  530

  DSS HQ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  —

  130

  CSA

  7

  —

  —

  49

  559

  —

  615

  WPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Grand total

  188

  114

  22

  253

  8.829

  92

  9,498

  31 March 1998

  BA

  169

  87

  27

  167

  3,464

  145

  4,059

  CA

  —

  —

  —

  36

  3,672

  —

  3,708

  ITSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  509

  —

  509

  DSSHQ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  154

  —

  154

  CSA

  12

  —

  —

  29

  463

  —

  504

  WPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Grand total

  181

  87

  27

  232

  8,262

  146

  8,935

  31 March 1997

  BA

  173

  104

  63

  183

  3,420

  186

  4,129

  CA

  —

  —

  6

  51

  3,741

  —

  3,798

  ITSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  521

  —

  521

  DSSHQ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160

  —

  160

  CSA

  13

  —

  —

  29

  453

  —

  495

  WPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Grand total

  186

  104

  69

  263

  8.295

  188

  9,105

  31 March 1996

  BA

  206

  79

  56

  212

  3,554

  179

  4,286

  CA

  —

  —

  13

  34

  3,892

  —

  3,939

  ITSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  547

  —

  547

  DSS HQ

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161

  —

  161

  CSA

  10

  3

  —

  9

  292

  —

  314

  WPA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Grand total

  216

  82

  69

  255

  8,446

  183

  9,251

  BA: Benefits Agency

  CA: Contributions Agency

  ITSA: Information Technology Services Agency

  DSSHQ: Includes information in respect of Independent Statutory Bodies

  CSA: Child Support Agency

  WPA: War Pensions Agency

  Notes:

  1. Information is included for CA (Contributions Agency) up to 31 March 1999; CA transferred to Inland Revenue on 1 April 1999

  2. Information on ITSA is included for the whole period—outsourcing not completed until September 2000
  638W
  Mr. Bayley
  A range of information about Disability Living Allowance is collated. Details of claims, reviews, appeals and awards, together with success rates, are published in the Department's Disability Care and Mobility Quarterly statistical Enquiry which is available in the Library.

  Agency Jobs (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many whole-time jobs there were in each agency within his Department in each district of Tyne and Wear in each of the last five years. [147008]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information available is shown in the table. This relates to the number of jobs filled on a whole-time basis for each of the last complete financial years.

  War Widows
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to reply to the letter of 18 October 2000 from Mr. Parett concerning war widows. [147039]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply was sent on 24 January with an apology for the delay that has occured.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on international support for developing the peace process in Northern Ireland. [145477]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on international support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. [145495]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There continues to be widespread international support for our attempts to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [145482]

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland. [145490]

  Mr. Mandelson
  We are continuing to make progress on the commitments made in May last year fully to implement the Good Friday agreement. We still have some way to go, but the discussions between the Northern Ireland political parties and the Prime Minister last week were constructive and I believe there is a desire from all quarters to move forward.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Saville inquiry has cost to date. [145478]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Up until 31 December 2000, the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry amounted to £33,834,904.

  Crime
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on what steps are being taken to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [145479]

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on steps he is taking to prevent criminals from profiting from unlawful activities in Northern Ireland. [145483]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 25 September, the Secretary of State announced the establishment of a multi -agency task force in Northern Ireland to tackle organised crime. The task force and its subgroups continue to meet to prepare a640W
  Northern Ireland organised crime strategy for 2001–02. I should also mention that the police and other agencies in Northern Ireland continue with successful operations against organised criminals. In answer to a question on 20 December, I gave just two examples. Customs and Excise had seized 45 million illegal cigarettes in the first three quarters of this financial year; and had closed 13 fuel plants, thereby preventing some 40 million litres of illicit fuel entering the Northern Ireland economy.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Government's policy is for reducing violent crime in Northern Ireland. [145481]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have set a specific target within the current policing plan for 2000–01 to achieve a detection rate for violent crimes of at least 50 per cent. Provisional figures for the period April 2000 to September 2000 indicate a clearance rate of 53.6 per cent.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many illegal weapons have been decommissioned by each of the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement. [145484]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the signing of the Belfast agreement, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has reported carrying out one decommissioning event.

  Nine weapons were included in the list of items belonging to the Loyalist Volunteer Force that was decommissioned in accordance with commission procedures on 18 December 1998.

  Also included was a quantity of ammunition, five detonators, two pipe bombs, two weapons stocks, and assorted magazines.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [145487]

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland. [145493]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made concerning the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. [145494]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress there has been towards arms decommissioning; and if he will make a statement. [145492]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari have reported that they have completed their second inspection of several IRA arms dumps. It represents further progress and an honouring of commitments given at the beginning of May. I am confident the inspectors will report any further progress that has been made when they deem it appropriate to do so.

  Further progress still needs to be made by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries to meet their commitments to bring a lasting peace to Northern Ireland.
  641W
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions have been held with General John de Chastelain about the decommissioning of illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland. [145488]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Good Friday agreement, the Decommissioning Commission operates as an independent body to resolve the decommissioning issue. The commission has provided written reports on progress on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for removing illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland. [145473]

  Mr. Ingram
  Efforts are still continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible.

  For their part, the Government are continuing to meet their commitments as agreed with the Irish Government to take the steps necessary for full implementation of the Belfast agreement by June 2001.

  Police Reform
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. [145485]

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on reform of policing in Northern Ireland. [145486]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in reforming the police service in Northern Ireland. [145501]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government remain committed to the new beginning in policing in Northern Ireland. This requires the implementation of the Police Act and a wide range of other changes. A revised, detailed implementation plan setting out the position on the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, including the extensive progress that has already been made, will be published shortly.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he is taking to create a normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [145489]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable recently announced a number of further normalisation measures including the demolition of the six Fermanagh patrol bases, the closure and demolition of Long Kesh army base and the closure of Strand road holding centre. Three of the Fermanagh patrol bases have been demolished and work has begun on the remaining three.

  In the longer term, the number of army bases will reduce to no more than 20. This includes sites in Londonderry, Belfast, Coleraine and Dungannon.
  642W
  However, these further measures will very much depend on the removal of the threat from dissident republicans and continued progress towards a normal civil society.

  Provisional IRA
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of Provisional IRA involvement in recent terrorist incidents. [145491]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State keeps the status of all ceasefires under continual review. We receive regular briefings on the security situation from the Chief Constable and senior security advisers. He will not hesitate to act against any organisation not observing a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.

  Inward Investment
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland NA what assessment he has made of the impact of the peace process on inward investment in Northern Ireland. [145496]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  On-street Violence
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he plans to hold with the Chief Constable concerning the level of on-street violence in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [145497]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State regularly discusses a range of issues with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Secretary of State is confident that the Chief Constable is doing everything possible, within the resources he has available, to tackle incidents of violent crime in the Province.

  Parades
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to help achieve agreement between interested parties which will enable previously controversial parades to proceed without causing public disorder in future. [145498]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are still firmly of the opinion that the most satisfactory resolution to problem parades is agreement at local level. If all sides work constructively together on the last initiative led by Mr. Currin, there may be hope for a successful outcome in the future.

  We will, of course, support the Parades Commission on any efforts they may have on finding a solution to this issue.

  Paramilitary Arms
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimates he has made of the volume of arms under the control of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. [145499]
  643W
  Mr. Ingram
  For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to disclose such intelligence matters. I can, however, say that substantial amounts of firearms, munitions and explosives are held by various groups in Northern Ireland.

  Economic Development
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of a stable security environment on economic development. [145500]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Paramilitary Activity
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. [145502]

  Mr. Ingram
  We believe that the main ceasefires are holding. However, there remains a threat from dissident republicans as evidenced by the recent attack on the security forces at Cookstown and the explosives find in South Armagh. Paramilitary organisations on both sides continue to carry out assaults, shootings and acts of intimidation. So far this year there have been 15 such attacks: eight attributed to Loyalists and seven attributed to Republicans.

  Terrorist Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) punishment beatings, (b) punishment shootings and (c) murders there were in Northern Ireland in (i) each week and (ii) each month from 1 October 2000 until 31 December 2000, indicating for each week and month how many of those crimes were committed by (x) Republican and (y) Loyalist groups. [144650]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of paramilitary-style attacks and deaths due to the security situation in Northern Ireland during the period 1 October 2000 to 31 December 2000.

  Paramilitary style attacks

  Shootings

  Assaults

  Date

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1–7 October

  5

  3

  —

  —

  8–14 October

  3

  —

  1

  1

  15–21 October

  1

  —

  1

  2

  22–28 October

  1

  1

  —

  —

  29 October to 4 November

  —

  2

  —

  1

  5–11 November

  1

  1

  —

  —

  12–18 November

  1

  1

  —

  1

  19–25 November

  1

  —

  3

  2

  26 November to 2 December

  —

  1

  2

  1

  3–9 December

  1

  2

  2

  1

  10–16 December

  3

  2

  —

  1

  17–23 December

  4

  1

  —

  2

  24–30 December

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Totals

  October

  10

  5

  2

  3

  November

  3

  4

  4

  5

  December

  8

  5

  5

  5

  644W

  Deaths due to the security situation

  Date

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1–7 October

  —

  —

  8–14 October

  —

  1

  15–21 October

  —

  —

  22–28 October

  1

  —

  29 October–4 November

  3

  —

  5–11 November

  —

  —

  12–18 November

  —

  —

  19–25 November

  —

  —

  26 November–2 December

  —

  —

  3–9 December

  1

  1

  10–16 December

  —

  —

  17–23 December

  1

  —

  24–30 December

  —

  —

  Deaths due to the security situation

  Totals

  October

  4

  November

  1

  December

  3

  Notes:

  1. Includes all deaths as a result of the security situation.

  2. 2000 Statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment

  Pipe Bomb Attacks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pipe bomb attacks occurred in each town in Northern Ireland during 2000. [145932]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of such attacks across the province. Outside Belfast the information is given by Royal Ulster Constabulary sub-divisional area.

  Security situation statistics

  Blast bombs 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2000

  Pipe bombs 1 October 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Belfast

  7

  6

  Carrickfergus

  —

  1

  Antrim

  1

  1

  Newcastle

  —

  2

  Armagh

  2

  —

  Portadown

  1

  —

  Dungannon

  1

  —

  Coleraine

  5

  9

  Magherafelt

  1

  2

  Ballymena

  2

  1

  Ballymoney

  3

  2

  Larne

  1

  1

  Notes:

  1. It should be noted that up to 30 September 2000 pipe bombs were recorded in the category of blast bombs, which includes devices such as "coffee jar bombs" which have been used during public disorder. Since 1 October 2000 pipe bombs have been recorded in their own right.

  2. Figures include explosions and defusions.

  Bishopscourt
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will grant an ex-gratia payment to the local community association in Bishopscourt/Ballyhornan in order to assist with the demilitarisation of the area. [145943]
  645W
  Mr. Mandelson
  I believe the question may refer to usage of the former RAF base at Bishopscourt which was taken out of use and sold in 1991. The Northern Ireland Office does not operate any scheme which permits the making of an ex-gratia payment in this instance.

  Riots
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have been inflicted on members of the (i) RUC and RUCR and (ii) armed services as a result of rioting during each year since 1983. [144689]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table lists the number of armed service personnel wounded/injured as a result of all types of incidents including bombs, shootings and public order. Public order incidents includes riots, physical assaults (on and off duty) and single stoning incidents. There were no deaths as a result of rioting.

  Year

  Army

  UDR/R Irish

  1983

  66

  22

  1984

  64

  22

  1985

  20

  13

  1986

  45

  10

  1987

  92

  12

  1988

  211

  18

  1989

  175

  15

  1990

  190

  24

  1991

  206

  47

  1992

  302

  18

  1993

  153

  28

  1994

  120

  6

  1995

  8

  5

  1996

  58

  1

  1997

  137

  14

  1998

  66

  20

  1999

  20

  16

  20001

  16

  4

  1 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to adjustment

  The following table lists the number of police deaths as a result of the security situation and serious public disorder.

  Year

  RUC

  RUCR

  1983

  9

  9

  1984

  7

  2

  1985

  14

  9

  1986

  10

  2

  1987

  9

  7

  1988

  4

  2

  1989

  7

  2

  1990

  7

  5

  1991

  5

  1

  1992

  2

  1

  1993

  3

  3

  1994

  3

  —

  1995

  1

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  1997

  3

  1

  1998

  1

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  2000

  —

  —

  The following tables list the number of police injuries as a result of the security situation and serious public disorder. Please note that up to 1994 information on injuries was not broken down into gunshot wound,
  646W
  explosion or other. The category 'other' refers to injuries resulting from serious public disorder and includes officers assaulted or hit by missiles, including petrol bombs and stones.

  Year

  RUC/RUCR

  1983

  142

  1984

  267

  1985

  415

  1986

  622

  1987

  246

  1988

  218

  1989

  163

  1990

  214

  1991

  139

  1992

  148

  1993

  147

  1994

  170

  RUC injuries

  Year

  Gunshot wounds

  Explosions

  Other

  Total

  1995

  —

  —

  285

  285

  1996

  1

  —

  353

  354

  1997

  4

  1

  283

  288

  1998

  1

  22

  338

  361

  1999

  —

  —

  311

  311

  20001

  —

  31

  319

  350

  1 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment

  RUCR injuries

  Year

  Gunshot wounds

  Explosions

  Other

  Total

  1995

  —

  —

  85

  85

  1996

  3

  —

  102

  105

  1997

  3

  —

  66

  69

  1998

  —

  2

  72

  74

  1999

  —

  —

  84

  85

  20001

  —

  12

  84

  96

  1 2000 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have arisen as a result of the use of plastic baton rounds for each year since 1983. [144688]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table provides the information requested.

  Alleged PBR death/injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1983

  —

  8

  1984

  1

  41

  1985

  —

  12

  1986

  1

  59

  1987

  —

  40

  1988

  —

  22

  1989

  1

  25

  1990

  —

  12

  1991

  —

  10

  1992

  —

  8

  1993

  —

  14

  1994

  —

  13

  647W

  Alleged PBR death injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1995

  —

  7

  1996

  —

  73

  1997

  —

  25

  1998

  —

  26

  1999

  —

  —

  2000

  —

  3

  Total

  3

  398

  Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) officers, (b) male officers and (c) female officers are serving in the full-time RUCR; how many had (i) under one year, (ii) under two years and more than one year and (iii) between two and three years of their contracts remaining at the latest date for which information is available; how many (A) male and (B) female officers have served (1) under five years, (2) five to 10 years, (3) 10 to 15 years and (4) over 15 years in the full-time RUCR; and how many officers in each of these cohorts now qualify for (x) early retirement and (y) enhanced redundancy payments. [141525]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The following tables provide the information requested as at 3 January 2001:

  Gender

  Total

  Male

  2,330

  Female

  226

  Total

  2,556

  Contract expiry

  Contract expiry

  Total

  Less than 1 year

  65

  1–2 years

  1,648

  2–3 years

  843

  Total

  2,556

  Service breakdown by gender

  Service

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Less than 5 years

  180

  117

  297

  5–10 years

  402

  85

  487

  10–15 years

  506

  24

  530

  Over 15 years

  1,242

  —

  1,242

  Totals

  2,330

  226

  2,556

  Number of RUC FTR eligible to apply for voluntary severance arrangements

  Service

  Officers eligible1

  10–15 years

  3

  15–20 years

  57

  20–25 years

  126

  25–30 years

  63

  Total

  249

  1 Applies to Year 1 (ending 31 March 2001) and Year 2 (ending 31 March 2002) only.

  648W
  Background
  Only officers in the RUC full-time who joined prior to 1995 are eligible to apply for the RUC Voluntary Early Retirement and Severance Scheme. Fifteen officers applied and will leave during Year 1; it is not yet possible to indicate how many will apply for the scheme during Year 2.

SCOTLAND

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many asylum seekers are being supported by each local authority in Scotland.[142436]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]610 principal asylum seekers were being supported by local authorities in Scotland prior to 3 April 2000, when the national asylum support service assumed responsibility for all new asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 473W, for details by each local authority. These figures are collected annually, in February, and I understand that there has been no substantial change since then.

  In addition, under separate arrangements with London boroughs, before the 1999 Act came into effect, Glasgow placed in accommodation in the region of 140 principal asylum seekers (570 individuals). Such placements ceased in June, since when four units of accommodation have been vacated.

  Glasgow City is currently the only local authority in Scotland providing services for asylum claimants under the 1999 Act. At 8 December it was accommodating 683 principal asylum seekers (1,094 individuals) under the new arrangements.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category.[144073]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on individual projects undertaken by consultants, academic researchers and university departments for the former Scottish Office is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. We have commissioned one report, from Colin Buchanan and Partners of Edinburgh, to compare motor taxation across Europe. The cost of the work was £5,464. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library and on the Department's website.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Solicitor-General against what criteria the public interest in prosecutions relating
  649W
  to (a) buggery, (b) indecent assault and (c) gross indecency, relating to males aged under 16 years, is measured. [146443]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service reviews each case on its own facts and merits in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. There is a presumption in favour of proceeding in all cases in which there is sufficient evidence, unless there are public interest factors which clearly outweigh those factors in favour of a prosecution. There are a number of public interest factors which may be considered, depending on the circumstances of each individual case. A prosecution would usually be in the public interest where there is any element of seduction or corruption of the young.

  Other relevant public interest considerations would include the relative ages of the parties; the nature of the relationship; any duty of care or breach of trust and whether there is any element of child abuse.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Solicitor-General what changes in prosecution policy have been made in respect of the offences of(a) buggery, (b) indecent assault and (c) gross indecency, relating to males aged under 16 years, since 1997. [146444]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service reviews each case in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This sets out the two-stage test which is applied in every case. The first stage is the evidential test. Only when that test is passed do prosecutors proceed to the second stage and consider whether it is in the public interest to proceed.

  Since 1997 there have been two relevant pieces of legislation. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 came into force on the 8 January 2001. This Act reduces the age of consent for buggery and certain homosexual acts from 18 to 16 in England and Wales. It also decriminalises the conduct of the party under the age of consent where the other party is 16 years or older.

  Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 came into force on 11 January 2001. Section 39 of this Act extends the age of the child against whom the offence of indecency with children can be committed from under 14 to under 16 years of age. Crown Prosecutors continue to apply both tests in accordance with the Code and with current legislation.

TREASURY

  Opposition Policies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer from the Minister for the Cabinet Office of 11 December 2000,Official Report, columns 47–48W, (1) concerning special advisers, which exercises referred to in the answer have been co-ordinated by the Treasury since January 2000; and if he will place details of the resulting documents in the Library; [144703]

  (2) what costings of (a) Liberal Democrat and (b) Conservative Party policies his Department has (i) undertaken and (ii) advised upon in the previous 12 months; and if he will place copies of such costings and relevant background documents in the Library; [146666]
  650W
  (3) what costings of (a) Liberal Democrat and (b) Conservative Party policies his Department has (i) undertaken and (ii) co-ordinated in the previous 12 months; and if he will place copies of such costings in the Library; [146671]

  (4) if special advisers in his Department have been involved in (a) co-ordinating, (b) costing and (c) presenting costings of policies of Opposition parties; and if he will make a statement. [146670]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]The Minister for the Cabinet Office set out in her answer of 11 December 2000,Official Report, columns 47–48W, the long-standing arrangements under successive administrations applying to the costing of policies and pledges of Opposition parties. The Treasury is from time to time consulted by other Departments to ensure that these costings are accurate. It is for individual Ministers to determine the form of presentation.

  Departmental Land (Harrow)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the land owned by his Department bounded by Honeypot Lane, Whitchurch Lane, the Jubilee Line and Edgware Brook in the London Borough of Harrow, what was(a) the date upon which contracts were exchanged between the property agents for the civil estates and the Asha Foundation for the purchase of the property, (b) the purchase price of the property detailed in the contract, (c) the survey valuation of the property prior to the date of the contract and (d) the latest valuation of the property. [146281]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE). I have asked her to reply.

  Letter from Vivien Bodnar to Sir Sydney Chapman, dated 24 January 2001:

  Land at Honeypot Lane
  The Chief Secretary of the Treasury has asked me as Chief Executive of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the land at Honeypot Lane, because PACE has responsibility for disposal of this property.
  The contract with the Asha Foundation was exchanged on 26 January 2000.
  The information that you requested on the purchase price and the survey valuation is commercially confidential and subject to contractual restrictions. There has been no valuation since the contracts were exchanged.

  Motor Fuels
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how fuel tax is accounted for when motor fuels are delivered to retail petrol stations at temperatures in excess of 15 degrees centigrade. [146971]

  Mr. Timms
  Fuel duty is not accounted for when motor fuels are delivered to petrol stations, but when the fuel leaves the refinery or import warehouse. At that point both its volume and temperature are recorded. Using internationally agreed conversion tables, the volume for excise duty purposes is calculated as it would be at a standard temperature of 15 degrees Centigrade.

  Agricultural Vehicles
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the use of agricultural vehicles in public demonstrations means they are no longer used exclusively for agriculture for the purposes of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979; and if he will make a statement. [146741]

  Mr. Timms
  Schedule 1 to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 defines categories of vehicle allowed to use red diesel. Customs and Excise aim to iterpret this law in a reasonable and proportionate way.

  Single Parent Families
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many single parent families there are where the sole parent is(a) the mother and (b) the father; [144129]

  (2) how many children under the age of five years are living in a one parent family. [144138]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 24 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Questions on the numbers of lone mother and lone father families and also the numbers of children aged under five within these families (144129, 144138). I am replying in his absence.
  The latest available, most reliable estimates are from the 1996 General Household Survey. An explanation of the method used in making these estimates can be found in the article entitled "One-parent families and their dependent children in Great Britain" published in Population Trends 91.
  Using this method, it has been estimated that there were 1.60 million lone-parent families with dependent children in Great Britain in 1996. From this provisional estimate, the numbers of lone mother and lone father families are estimated to be 1.46 million and 0.14 million, respectively.
  The comparable 1996 estimate for the number of children aged under five living in one-parent families, in Great Britain is 0.73 million.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportions of full-time workers in(a) Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) each local authority area in Scotland have hourly gross earnings (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime, below (1) £7.15, (2) £6.58, (3)£4.94 and (4)£3.60 for the categories (A) male manual, (B) male non-manual, (C) all male, (D) female manual, (E) female non-manual, (F) all female, (G) all manual and (H) all non-manual; and what the figure is for all workers. [146240]
  652W
  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 24 January 2001:
  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question on hourly earnings for workers in Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland (146240).
  The best estimates for the number and proportion of jobs paid below low hourly rate thresholds are provided by combining data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). The following estimates on this basis are available:
  All jobs paid at below (1) £3.60, (2) £4.90, (3) £6.60 and (4) £7.00 in UK
  All jobs held by men/women paid at below £3.60 in UK.
  For Scotland and areas within Scotland no information consistent with these estimates is available.
  The estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp.

  Offshore Financial Centres
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by whom Her Majesty's Government are represented on the working group on offshore financial centres established following the recent meetings held in Barbados. [147166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  High-level consultations on the OECD's harmful tax competition initiative took place in Barbados on 8–9 January 2001 between OECD and Commonwealth countries. A working group was established to carry forward the dialogue. Her Majesty's Government will be represented on the group by the Inland Revenue.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the compensation to former Japanese internees will be included in their estate for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax. [146488]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am today announcing an Extra Statutory Concession which will protect these awards from IHT. In strict law, the compensation as such would not form part of a person's estate unless they die before the claim is paid out. Once they have received their compensation in cash, what shows up in their estate for IHT purposes would obviously depend on whether they choose to save it. In the very exceptional circumstances of these cases, however, we think that claimants should be able to decide that without concern for the IHT consequences. We will therefore be allowing an extra£10,000 relief from inheritance tax for every eligible claimant, whether or not they have yet received it, and whatever they choose to do with it subsequently.

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

NCOs' Parade Ground Orders
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether non-commissioned officers have been told to reduce their decibel levels when instructing recruits on the parade ground.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, no, they have not.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on giving what I believe is the shortest reply she has ever given. Were the newspaper reports that said that the Army had issued red and yellow cards to new recruits true? They reported that if a recruit thought that the non-commissioned officer was speaking too loudly, he could put up a yellow card, and if he thought that the officer was speaking terribly loudly, he could put up a red card, in which case the officer would have to report to his senior officer. If that is correct, it would be interesting to know whether health and safety regulations would be relevant.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. My reply may have been short, but it was as accurate as always.
On the question of red and yellow cards, reports of which appeared in the newspapers, it is true that recruits were issued with temporary identity cards—I stress that they were ID cards—while they were waiting for permanent documentation at two Army training centres, one of which was at Glencorse in Scotland and the other at Lichfield. The cards were indeed red and yellow, but they were for the purposes of aiding staff in the NAAFI. The cards made it clear who could and who could not be sold alcohol. For your Lordships' further elucidation, I add that in Glencorse the over-18s were issued with yellow cards and the under-18s with red cards. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that in Lichfield the exact opposite pertained—the over-18s had red cards and the under-18s had yellow cards.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest, which I may share with other Members of the House. Is the noble Baroness aware that, as a former officer cadet, I was under the training of Regimental Sergeant-Major Brittan?
254
If, as I am sure is the case, the Minister's reply was correct, I express regret at the fact that the potential for opera singers in Britain may be severely damaged.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this matter raises an important point about industrial deafness. Work is currently under way studying soldiers who may suffer from deafness following battlefield exercises. That is important, because obviously any impediment to hearing in the armed services could be very serious.
I take the points that the noble Lord made about his sergeant-major and about opera singers. He may be interested to know that the loudest shout ever recorded in this country reached 121.7 decibels. The shout came from a lady called Anna Lisa Ray. Her shout was recorded in Northern Ireland in April 1994, and she was shouting the word, "Quiet"!
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have there been any cases of pensions being applied for or awarded for impairment of hearing arising from the impact of parade ground orders?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises another serious aspect to this question. I have made inquiries on exactly that point. I understand that during the past three years there has been one attributable pension because of deafness of an individual leaving the Army.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's encouraging Answer to the Question, and her response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, is she aware of the power of the voice of Regimental Sergeant-Major Brittan? When I was a boy at Wellington, he drilled me, as an officer cadet, to line the route at the funeral of the late King George VI. I measured the commands of Regimental Sergeant-Major Brittan and found that they were audible from a distance of more than 1,000 metres or—to use a measurement that meant more to me in those days—five furlongs. That was, roughly, the distance between Admiralty Arch and Buckingham Palace. That is considerably in excess of what is required to be an opera singer.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if it would help the noble Viscount, I have in my possession a very interesting chart that shows the decibel levels of just about everything, from whispering in a public library through to the take off of a jet aircraft. I do not know whether Sergeant-Major Brittan was able to rival a jet aircraft; I rather doubt it. Nonetheless, long may our officers be able to make themselves clearly heard and understood.
Again, an important point is raised. Those who are sent into battle have to hear clearly the instructions that are given to them. If instructions were not clearly

255
heard, the most appalling incidents might result. Although the noble Viscount made his supplementary in a light-hearted vein, he raised a serious issue about hearing in the Armed Forces. I am sure that none of your Lordships would wish that to be forgotten.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most likely cause of deafness is from groups at discos rather than regimental sergeant-majors?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, unfortunately, the chart that was provided to me by the Ministry of Defence does not contain the decibel level in discotheques. I could have told your Lordships about the decibel levels of pneumatic drills or riveting machines but, unfortunately, I cannot do so for the typical disco.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have a recording of the decibel level of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as always, the noble Earl is the model of clarity.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me—and I know that it is slightly unfair because I am sure that it is not on her list—what would be the decibel level for people standing on tanks, instructing tank gunners in AP shell-firing on ranges? That is chiefly what I suffered from at the end of the war, after I had been wounded.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as luck would have it, I can say something about the decibel level in a Challenger 2 tank. The level outside a Challenger 2 tank is 176 decibels and inside the Challenger 2 tank it is 142 decibels. For those of your Lordships who are interested in the SA80, a point which very often concerns your Lordships in this House, that rifle fires at 160 decibels.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as a result of those questions, can I take it that all non-commissioned officers, sergeant-majors and so on, are to be able to shout in the way that they always have done and are not going to be restricted by any health and safety regulations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, the noble Earl may.

Railtrack: Licence Obligations
2.43 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Railtrack is in breach of its licence obligations to operate a reliable rail infrastructure.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, licence compliance is a matter for the rail regulator. The rail regulator made a provisional order under Section 55 of the Railways Act 1993 requiring Railtrack to produce, by 18th January, recovery plans for individual train operators. I understand that Railtrack supplied these plans on time and that the regulator is now considering them.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Is my noble friend aware that, while all this was going on, Leeds station and Willesden station on the West Coast Main Line have been closed for two weeks longer than was planned due, I am told, to mismanagement of the work? But the chief executive of Railtrack is quoted as saying:
"We have had a very successful Christmas/New Year period".
Is this not a case for what Sir Alastair Morton calls the "nuclear" option, and he asks:
"Should they continue to have this monopoly licence to operate the infrastructure"?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, while there were delays in regard to both Leeds and Willesden, I am delighted to report that those have now been sorted out. But I am even more pleased to report that by next week 85 per cent of the normal daily total of 18,500 passenger services should be running normally.
I should make it clear that we have no plans to revoke Railtrack's licence. We want Railtrack to succeed most immediately in delivering the rail recovery programme.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Minister please inform the House which authority is responsible for specifying the quality of steel to be laid on a particular section of track?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, ultimately, the Health and Safety Commission looks at matters to do with safety. Indeed, we have just had a report from Professor Smith and his group which looked at the causes of gauge corner cracking. On the basis of what they know to date—and investigations continue—they have decided that metallurgical reasons were probably not at the root of the problems found on the railway following Hatfield.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the most frightening aspect of the present situation is that four months after the accident Railtrack is not able to establish who was responsible for a situation where trains were running at 117 miles per hour when, in fact, they should have been confined to 20 miles per hour? Does he not agree that there is a strong case for looking at the management structure of

257
the present system, given that such a situation could not have arisen under the functional structure of the previous British Railways Board?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, questions of what went wrong at Hatfield are under active consideration by the Health and Safety Executive and, indeed, by the British Transport Police. However, I assure your Lordships that the lessons are being learnt by the industry and by Railtrack in particular. I believe that the approach to the management of maintenance contracts will change. We believe that that is a question of management but the Government will strive to do whatever they can, through their Rail Recovery Action Group, to help co-operation and co-ordination inside the industry.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, following on the previous question, is it not the case that prima facie there is very serious reason to suppose that the technological and engineering management of Railtrack is well below the standards which existed during the British Rail period, even in its last and almost least admirable phase?
Who can interfere and who can play a part in ensuring that that lack can be made right? For example, is it a matter for the rail regulator? Does the Competition Commission have a role? How can the Government stimulate any or either of those bodies to do their duty, if indeed it is their duty? And if it is not their duty, whose duty is it?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the rail regulator does have a duty in that regard. He has a legal duty to enable Railtrack to finance its activities. But he also has a duty to ensure that Railtrack maintains standards across the network. We believe that we have introduced a regulatory regime which is more rigorous than that which existed in the past. Lord Cullen's inquiry is in progress at the moment and we believe that we shall eventually end up with an extremely thorough evaluation of the problems of safety on the network. And in this House and another place we have pledged to implement the recommendations of Lord Cullen.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister say whether those defective rails met the necessary specifications and, if so, is it not suggested, as a result of Hatfield, that those specifications in themselves were inadequate?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the inquiry into the events at Hatfield goes on. It is being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive, which issued an interim report earlier this week in which your Lordships will have seen the remarkable and, I believe, unprecedented condition of the broken rail at Hatfield. Why the rail came to be in that state is, as I said earlier, a matter for the HSE's further inquiry and
258
for the British Transport Police to establish. It would not be right for me to try to anticipate the findings of those two bodies.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the Rail Recovery Action Group has achieved so far and for how long he believes that it will be in existence?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Rail Recovery Action Group has been remarkably effective in encouraging co-operation among the various parties on the railways. Included in that group is not only Railtrack but also the train operating companies, including the freight companies, the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority and the representatives of the passengers. As well as encouraging co-operation and co-ordination across the industry in this time of crisis, we believe that it will also help to increase self-confidence, which was clearly badly shaken by the events of Hatfield, following as they did the events at Paddington. I believe that the group has been effective. It has met twice a week and I anticipate, with the progress that has been made, that we shall be able to reduce that to once a week and close the group before Easter.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister look forward, like me, to the day when the number of rail engineers in the higher echelons of Railtrack outnumber the accountants or, to put it another way, when the wheel-tappers have taken over from the number-crunchers?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the wheel-tappers and number-crunchers' club! I am delighted to report that in recent weeks in Railtrack there have been significant moves to promote engineers inside the hierarchy and to board level. The new chief executive, Mr Steve Marshall, has made it clear that he feels that that is an area of the company's activities that must be strengthened, and action has already been taken.

Age-related Macular Degeneration
2.52 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden Lord Roll of Ipsden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for promoting the treatment of, and research into, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and for the further provision of services to those afflicted with this disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government, through the Medical Research Council, are funding several major research projects into macular degeneration. Those include a £1.5 million grant to look at genetic susceptibility to age-related macular degeneration, which is due to commence soon. We are also collaborating with the

259
voluntary sector to develop low vision services for people who have lost vision as a result of eye disease, including macular degeneration.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Before pressing him further I must declare an interest as I am afflicted by this condition, although happily for many years it has been stabilised. With regard to the alleviation of sufferers today, an increasing number of devices are available that in terms of the normal costs of the National Health Service are relatively modest in price, yet many sufferers cannot afford them. I believe that recently there was an announcement that additional funding is to be made available for community equipment services. Will the Minister ensure that an adequate proportion of that amount will be available to assist those who cannot afford to buy such devices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the aids that may be used by low-vision sufferers. This afternoon I cannot give him the complete assurance that he seeks, but I am aware of the issue and I intend to meet the RNIB soon to discuss it.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister give the House assurance about the research that is taking place? I am a fellow sufferer and I was told by my ophthamologist that current research is not much use. Is there a variety of research taking place in different places?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth informing the House that it is estimated that 1 million people suffer from this condition to varying degrees of severity, but at the moment little is known about the causes of the disease and effectively treatment is only available for about 10 per cent of those who suffer from wet AMD. Clearly, we need a research effort to discover both the causes and the treatment effects. I am happy to place in the Library a copy of the research projects that we know are being undertaken. A large number are taking place, including research projects that are directly funded from the Department of Health and through the Medical Research Council.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Roll, referred to treating the symptoms. Am I correct in believing that at the moment there is no actual treatment, except for the rare type of condition to which he referred? Is the research that is taking place to try to discover a treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, and it is seeking to discover the causes as well. The only treatment that is thought to be effective is laser treatment. That is thought useful for about 10 per cent of people who have wet degeneration and who reported their symptoms early. It is clear that this is a
260
major problem for many people in our community and we simply do not yet know enough about the causes and the treatment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, two years ago the Government made the over 60s eligible for free eye tests. It is important that they should take place so that AMD can be detected and alleviated at an early stage and, if possible, treated. Can the Minister tell the House what resources are devoted to publicising that such eye tests are available? How many people over 60 have had such an eye test?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. The figures for the NHS sight tests have shown a considerable increase since the decision was taken to make eye tests free for people aged 60 or over. In 1998–99, 8,174,000 eye tests were undertaken under the NHS. In the year 1999–2000 that number increased to 10,880,000. As to publicity, I am aware that the RNIB believes that not only should we do more to encourage those over 60 to take advantage of the free eye tests, but also that we should encourage people of 50 and over to have regular eye tests. It is a matter that I am hoping to discuss with the institute shortly to see what further action we can take.

Anti-ballistic Missile Shield
2.57 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What communication they have had with President George W. Bush about United Kingdom co-operation with work to put in place an anti-ballistic missile shield.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have had no communication with President George W. Bush about national missile defence, but we look forward to discussing this and other issues with the new Administration over the coming months.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which is slightly disappointing. I express the hope that her colleague is not freezing in her tent in Antarctica, which is presumably colder than Scotland. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take the initiative to persuade our European allies to support the American initiative in the anti-ballistic missile shield?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is disappointed. I remind him that the Bush Administration has not yet been in office for a week. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear last week in another place, we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop a national missile defence system, but the new

261
Administration has made it clear that it has no firm views on a specific system. It is not for us to say how they should deal with a perceived threat.
President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell have all made clear the need to consult with allies and with Russia as they determine how to tackle the threat posed by missile proliferation. As I said yesterday to the House in answer to another Question, we welcome that. Of course, we want to see strategic stability preserved and we are sympathetic to the concerns of the United States.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there can be nothing more foolish than to commit ourselves in advance to an untested and unknown system before there has been consultation with allies and without regard to the outcome of such consultation? Does she also agree that the emphasis that was placed on the possibility of space-based or sea-based national missile defence systems would suggest, in particular, a considerable concern for China in view of its geographical placement?
Finally, does she agree that it is vital to have the widest possible consultation with NATO allies and with other countries similar to that to which the Secretary of State in the new Administration has clearly indicated he is committed?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as I indicated in my Answer, the new Administration has not made clear any firm views on a specific system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, in addition to Colin Powell, of the Secretary of State, President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have made clear the need to consult with allies and with Russia as they determine to tackle the threat proposed by missile proliferation.
In the present situation, no one knows whether a request will be made. If a request is made, no one knows what it will be and no one knows what the global, political and military context will be if such a request is made. Therefore, forming replies now would seem to be a pointless exercise.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether and that ABM is in direct conflict with that aim?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as I assured my noble friend Lord Jenkins yesterday, our ultimate aim is to have global nuclear disarmament.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister is right in saying that it is early days for the new American Administration. However, with Iraq again working on longer range missiles and with the horrific warheads it plans to put on them, and with Iran testing a missile with a range of more than 1,000 miles, are we not moving to the point where considerable new
262
dangers threaten the entire European continent and our region? Should we not be doing a little more than merely waiting for a request? Should we not be taking an active initiative with American technologists and defence chiefs in seeing how we can prevent these increasing dangers from threatening the security of everyone in the European region?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we understand the concerns of the United States. We, too, are concerned about missile proliferation. Currently, we see no significant threat to the United Kingdom but we continue to assess the range of threats and the best means to overcome them, including the case for ballistic missile defence. Our present research work is focused on the threat to UK-deployed forces. It is also the focus of the feasibility study that we and our allies commissioned in NATO last year. I can assure the House that we will continue to assess the range of threats and the best means to overcome them, including the case for a ballistic missile defence. It is certainly not the case that we are doing nothing.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the arguments which is frequently put forward against assisting the United States in this endeavour is the ABM treaty? If so, will she make clear to the House that the ABM treaty was an agreement between the then Soviet Union and America not to deploy missile defences so that their populations were vulnerable to each other's missiles? That was the concept known as "mutual assured destruction" or, perhaps more appropriately, MAD?
Does the Minister further agree that it is somewhat strange that the people who are so outraged by the principle of mutual assured destruction are the very same people who are complaining about measures being taken to defend their populations against it?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am in broad agreement with the thrust of what the noble Lord says. Of course he is right that the ABM treaty is important and we would not like to see it damaged. But neither would the Americans. The previous and new Administrations have made clear that they see the importance of consulting both with allies and Russia.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, when last year President Clinton proposed the installation of a national missile defence, was not the reaction of President Putin to a renegotiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty not wholly hostile? If the Americans decide to install an anti-ballistic missile system, would not such a renegotiation between at least those two parties be a useful course of action?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, renegotiations will not be easy and the noble Lord is right in saying that the initial reaction from Russia was hostile. But that is the point of negotiation. Talks

263
continued and I am sure that the new Administration, as it has said, will ensure that it will consult with Russia as well as with its allies.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the subject of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be on the agenda for discussions with the new Administration, when they take place?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there is great interest in that subject. We can say only that we have noted that Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his statement at his confirmation hearing, said that the new Administration would not ask the Senate to reconsider. However, he also said that the US would not resume testing as there was no need to do so in the foreseeable future. He further said that he would consider a report prepared for President Clinton by General Shalikashvili which argued in favour of US ratification. So we shall certainly examine ways of encouraging the entry into force of the CTBT.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that following the successful experiment last year we shall try to find time for a short half-term break this February. Subject, as always, to the progress of business, the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Wednesday 21st February and rise at the end of business that day. The House will not sit on Thursday 22nd or Friday 23rd February. The House will return at the usual time of 2.30 p.m. on Monday 26th February.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for making that announcement and for doing so early. I have only two points to make. First, the noble Lord is kindly offering us a one-day break but I understand that another place is rising for a whole week. Will the noble Lord explain why another place can have a whole week off but we have only one day?
Secondly, will he give us an assurance that no pressure will later be put on us to cut corners in our examination of legislation as it proceeds through the House and that we shall be able to perform our function in the usual manner?
Lord Carter: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, we work harder. It is as simple as that. The answer to his second question is that the chance of your Lordships cutting any corners is very slim indeed.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("(51(46.12'N, 01(02.07'E)") and insert ("(51(46.1'N,01(02.7'E)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. Both amendments have been proposed by the promoters and are available in the Printed Paper Office in the usual way.
The first amendment is needed to correct an inaccuracy in one of the sets of co-ordinates describing the seaward limits of the harbour and to achieve consistency in the expression of each of the co-ordinates to the first decimal place.
The second amendment clarifies the terms of agreement arrived at between the council and one of the petitioners. It was agreed that the council should keep the power to maintain the footways as well as the riverbanks and the word "footways" was accidentally omitted from the amended Bill. This amendment corrects that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 14, line 5 in column 2, after ("any") insert ("footways and any").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Simon of Glaisdale and the Lord Northbourne set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention
3.10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdalerose to call attention to the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention in the light of recent constitutional developments; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion, I record my gratitude to my noble friends on the Cross Benches who chose it for

265
debate and for their encouragement to me to move it. We believe that we are vindicated when we look at the list of distinguished speakers today.
I take as my point of departure matters which I believe are in general agreement throughout political society here: first, that we value our parliamentary democracy and wish to further it; secondly, that we agree that there should be a two-chamber Parliament; and, thirdly, that the essence of our constitution is not a separation but balance of powers, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor frequently made clear during debates in the previous Session. Since it is a question of a balance of power, one immediately calls to mind the observation of Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt. More often than not, the first sign of corruption is a desire for greater power which immediately causes a dislocation in the balance.
In favouring parliamentary democracy we do not mean that it is an ideal system of government; indeed, there is no such thing, because all systems of government have to make do with the crooked timber of humanity. Nor is parliamentary democracy the only way to promote democracy. On the contrary, the biggest revolution in recent years has been the vindication of the market economy which is now accepted by all except a small minority. In effect, it means that each shopping day is a general election; every purchase is a cross made on the counter in favour of one of the candidates paraded for approval.
Obviously, Parliament cannot constitute an executive because it is unwieldy for the purpose. However, it grants great power to an executive, both political and civil service. But if parliamentary government means anything—the tercentenary of the glorious revolution just over a decade ago was widely celebrated in Parliament and throughout the country—it means that Parliament can effectively call the executive to account. I emphasise the word "effectively" because often it is merely a nominal calling to account.
I emphasise that once an individual is elected to Parliament he becomes a member of an elite. That arises because it is now widely—perhaps universally—accepted that Burke was right when he said:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
That means that Parliament quite often claims to know better than the electorate to which it owes its being. That was perhaps vindicated by Parliament's insistence on the abolition of capital punishment when every poll appeared to show that that was not the general opinion of the country.
I said that a two-chamber Parliament had been widely accepted in all the constitutional debates on parliamentary reform. But that means that whenever there are two chambers differences between them are apt to arise. If they are to be complementary and not merely duplicatory, those differences are bound to arise and methods must be found to resolve disagreements. I refer to only two of several methods: first, the Parliament Acts which were passed partly
266
because of an impasse over the Budget. The famous Budget of Lloyd George contained proposals which went far beyond mere fiscal matters. Goaded by that, the opposition threw out the Budget and so withheld supply from the Government, which for centuries had been accepted as the exclusive role of the House of Commons.
What the Parliament Act did was, first, to make fiscal matters the exclusive concern of the other place. The necessity of that was emphasised in the row in Australia between Gough Whitlam and Mr Knox where the Senate, having power over supply, forced the government which enjoyed the support of the lower chamber to go to the country. I believe your Lordships accept that the vouchsafing of fiscal authority to the other place is a necessary conclusion. Secondly, the Act imposed powers of delay. Thirdly, ultimately it gave power to the other place to override decisions of your Lordships. I say "ultimately" because it could not be done as a matter of routine. If it was done as a matter of routine it would mean that in effect we would have unicameral legislation, which nobody now advocates.
Further, the Parliament Acts do not touch secondary legislation which in our time is of increasing importance, or at any rate increasing scope. The Wakeham report recommended that a difference of opinion should be dealt with by a three-month delay. However, the justification for secondary legislation, apart from dealing only with minor details which do not need delay, is the urgency that it calls into question. If it is urgent it does not appear that a three-month delay is advisable.
The next matter of resolution is the Salisbury doctrine. When that was enunciated there was a large Labour majority in the other place and a large inbuilt Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. There was no doubt that the main Labour proposals of nationalisation had been firmly before the electorate in the preceding general election.
For decades Clause 4 has been part of the constitution of the Labour Party. So it seems entirely reasonable that the Salisbury doctrine should be enunciated in the terms that it was. There was always something unreal about it in its reference to a manifesto, because a manifesto does not contain just a list of proposals which are committed for approval to the electorate. One can have an election of that kind. Many American states do. But a manifesto in this country is certainly not a list for which the approval of the electorate is asked individually.
However, the great thing about the Salisbury convention is that it works. Generally, that is enough in this country. I think it is quite enough. The last comment to make about it is that it is a constitutional convention and not constitutional law. In other words, it is binding only politically and morally but not legally, and only so long as it is convenient.
The first constitutional development to which I want to refer is that there is no longer an inbuilt Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. The second is the increasing domination of the other place

267
by the executive. That is not new but is fast increasing. The third matter was one referred to forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, last Friday; namely, the acceptance of the referendum as part of our constitutional system.
There is a story which has come down from the days before 1914 of Lloyd George goading Asquith and saying, "The Tories are disliked. They have recommended a referendum as a resolution of differences between the Houses". Asquith merely said with a show of a foreign accent "referendum?" and Lord Lloyd-George went happily away. Perhaps that still subsists because where referendums were referred to in the previous Session, the plural used was the English "referendums" and not the Latin of "referenda". Nevertheless, it is fairly accepted now.
The question arises, do we still need the Parliament Acts? It would be a major task, a major proposal, to repeal them. One could, of course, rely on the admitted common privilege so far as concerns fiscal matters, but the mere fact that the Parliament Acts have been used promiscuously more by this government than ever before does not mean that they may not be necessary in certain respects.
The abuse of the Parliament Acts can be rectified by a self-denying order by, in particular, the Prime Minister. It is only if he needs to have his own way in everything that we need it.
As the Salisbury convention is a convention only, it would be advantageous to leave it for its residual use when it might turn out to be necessary. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am deeply honoured to be the first speaker after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I congratulate him both on the excellent topic he has chosen for us today and on the admirable way in which he introduced it. When I first arrived in your Lordships' House some 14 years ago he was a great figure. He confirms today what a major contribution he makes to our deliberations. He is always intellectually stimulating and, unusually for those of us who try to be that, says much of great practical value.
Perhaps I may also follow him on two general themes. On the question of parliamentary democracy, I have always taken the view that Winston Churchill got the matter about right; namely, any analysis of parliamentary democracy would show how imperfect a system it is and any analysis of any other system would show how much worse that system is. Therefore, we all regard ourselves committed to parliamentary democracy.
One minor word on economics. I do not want to talk about the market economy per se, but we need to recognise—as it is not recognised, I fear, chiefly by people in the other place rather than in your Lordships' House—the enormous power of global economic forces. In the other place, particularly, they delude themselves about the power of governments, let alone Back-Benchers. It is about time this country
268
faced up to the world in which we live. We should not continue to make trivial remarks about sovereignty, the power we can exercise and so on.
I am not an expert on these constitutional matters. I look forward to hearing what the experts say. The first principle from which we start is rather ahead of the Salisbury convention and the Parliament Acts: a government, in broad terms, are entitled to get their business through Parliament. Therefore, the so-called Salisbury/Addison rules have a role to play because the Government have been elected on the basis of—whether one calls it a manifesto or some broad set of propositions—what they propose to do. It is entirely reasonable in a parliamentary democracy that within those broad terms that is what the Government should at least be given a chance to do.
Logically, whether we have these or some other Parliament Acts, we need some kind of legislation which helps towards that end. We had an excellent debate, although I was only a listener, last Friday when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, introduced some material on the Parliament Acts. He has nothing to offer me so I can say this with ease: I thought that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General dealt with the question of the Parliament Acts in an entirely satisfactory way in explaining why they did not interfere fundamentally with what we should do. That is about the only nice remark that I think I shall make for the rest of the afternoon.
The real point we are guided to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is how this is connected with the role of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that if we are to have a revising Chamber—in other words, if we are not to be unicameral—the revising Chamber has to revise. That seems to follow perfectly logically. If the other place, either via the Salisbury/Addison convention or the Parliament Acts, simply said, "You have had your say, but forget it. We are still going to do what we intend to do", the easiest thing would be to get rid of us, which would also save a certain amount of public money. That is not the same as saying that we must always get our own way, but we must certainly be listened to. A test of whether we have any value is that something must quite frequently change as a result of our contribution.
Therefore, neither the Salisbury/Addison rules nor the Parliament Acts should be used in ways that end up, de facto, with our making no contribution. If that is its view, the other place really ought to bite the bullet and say, "Thank you very much for several hundred years of history, but goodbye". That seems to me perfectly obvious, given our present composition. We are all nominated. Some of us are distinguished. Others of us, as I always emphasise, are party hacks, and I have never minded being a party hack. The fact is that we are not elected. We have privileges and a role to play, but on our side we expect to be listened to and hope that things will change. However, if in the end we have been listened to sympathetically and occasionally do get our own way, we also have to get used to the idea that sometimes we do not. That is enormously important.

269
I have referred to the present composition of your Lordships' House. I turn to consider what would be the position if we were to move to a hybrid House. As your Lordships may be aware, I am extremely doubtful about the value of a small elected element. I can see little point to it. The more I try to analyse the consequences of an elected element, the more absurd it seems. I do not believe that having a small elected element in your Lordships' House would change anything that I have just said. It seems to me that a small elected element does not make us very much more legitimate and does not give the other place any reason to take us any more seriously.
There is another matter that particularly troubles me about a small elected element. One of the admirable features of your Lordships' House is that we are all Peers and all equal. It is one of the aspects that I most like about this place. I am very troubled that, if we get stuck with a small elected element, someone will somehow invent the doctrine that their votes count for more than the rest of our votes. If that happened—and if I were alive to see it happen—I would vigorously oppose it.
I therefore again emphasise that the revising role should be given great weight. However, I do not think that we need to wait for the next stage of whatever the Government put forward in order for the other place to take more seriously what we do. There is a responsibility on both Houses to take the other seriously. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to balance. I believe that balance is very important here, although ultimately we defer to the other place.
If this House were 100 per cent elected, which is another matter, the whole world would change. In that case, the Parliament Acts would have to disappear, because they would have no meaning, neither would the Salisbury/Addison doctrines. In my judgment, if this were a 100 per cent elected Chamber, it would have to be equal to the other Chamber. It would be as legitimate as the other Chamber, and if it were elected according to certain alternative rules, I would regard it as even more legitimate than the other Chamber. However, I do not believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is guiding us towards today. My judgment is that, in terms of the doctrines we are considering, we can set aside the question of what would happen if we had a 100 per cent elected Chamber. But certainly it would follow that, in those circumstances, all these doctrines would have to go.
We have 10 minutes. I, happily, hope to conclude inside nine. I have one final remark. Whenever these topics have been debated in the past year or so, I have felt obliged to speak. Every time I speak, nothing happens and I say to myself, "Surely you have better things to do". I felt that it was my duty to speak today. However, I ask myself, "Am I wasting my time yet again?" For once, I hope that that is not true.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
270
As so often happens in debates covering subjects of this kind, I find myself very substantially in agreement with the burden of what he has said, though I suspect that there are, as always, differences of emphasis.
I start by underlining how much I agree with the noble Lord's remarks about the logic of this House having a function and, therefore, needing to have some sort of power to convince people that that function is useful. Without power, we will be ignored. If I may be impertinent enough to say so, I believe that the noble Lord is entirely right about that.
I should also like to say that, not for the first time, we are greatly in the debt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. His Motion has been creeping up the Order Paper for some time now. With his usual good judgment, he has introduced it, timed to perfection. This Motion is concerned with the balance of power between this House and another place, as has been emphasised in both speeches made so far during the course of the debate. We all know that reform of this place is unfinished business. Many people do not believe me when I say so, but it was the reason behind the infamous deal that I concluded with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some years ago. It is clear that all the political parties are split over what powers we should confer on a fully reformed House, and therefore what composition should flow from that reform.
I find the Government's silence rather ominous, as I suspect does the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for the same reasons that he gave in his concluding remarks. I fear that the Government, for all their fine words, intend to stuff into their manifesto what in the trade has come to be known as "Wakeham B" and ram it through under the Salisbury convention, should they win in May. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Wakeham, I confess that I do not find that "Wakeham B" remotely begins to answer the urgent need—and I believe that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying this—to rebalance the relationship between the two Houses, which is what I think should inform any attempt at an effective reform of this place.
If successful, such a rebalancing would, in my view, greatly contribute to restoring Parliament's effectiveness as a whole and, paradoxically, by making this place more powerful, increase the power and standing of another place as we ensure that it does its job a great deal better. I believe that this reason is now very nearly universally acknowledged by anyone genuinely interested in these matters, apart perhaps from the members of the present Government. I certainly acknowledged that—before an obvious rejoinder comes from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—before as well as after the last election.
The reason is very clear. It has already been stated by the noble and learned Lord. It is that another place is, to all intents and purposes, the agent of the government of the day. It is true that a small majority, a great issue that divides the governing party, or growing unpopularity in the country as a whole, diminish that dominance. But, in the absence of a general election, even the weakest government, as we

271
have found, can get most of their business through. Furthermore, another place, and the inhibiting factors that I have just listed, have no beneficial influence whatever on the quality of legislation passed by such a government, which is also a test of the quality of the work of another place.
I therefore believe that the central purpose of a properly reformed upper House should be to deter governments from getting away with it. Knowing that we were vigilant and effective here would, I suppose, not only make governments more careful about how they behave but would, curiously enough, encourage more independence in another place. The fact that we were prepared to use our powers—and I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—would be an incentive to resolving disagreements by negotiation rather than by constant confrontation, which was another matter alluded to by the noble and learned Lord. As such, our day-to-day role as a House of influence rather than a House of power would, desirably so, be confirmed rather than undermined.
I hope that your Lordships have followed my argument so far, paradoxical though it may be. In order to perform the role which I have ventured to describe, I believe that this place will need to develop more teeth. We are beginning to do so already. I am, for instance, full of admiration for the way in which this Government have generally followed our example and accepted the strictures of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, under the chairmanship of my noble friend. We are perhaps well on the way to developing a new convention which acknowledges that governments are obliged to do just that.
I am equally sure that the House was right to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—this point may be a little more controversial in the view of the Government—of the noble and learned Lord who initiated the debate, and of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to overturn the more recent convention, dating from 1968, that we do not vote against secondary legislation. I need not add any more to what the noble and learned Lord said in that respect. I found myself greatly in agreement with him.
There is one other matter which this House would do well not to forget. I believe, as I have tried to make clear in debates held at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and of my noble friends Lord Dean of Harptree and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that this House should have the right to insist upon a post-legislative referendum before an Act is brought into force. A well-reformed House would have the authority to exercise its judgment as to what issue was important enough in character, and effectively so irreversible in its nature, as to warrant an increasingly well-educated and aware electorate giving its approval specifically to what was proposed.
An upper House of the character I imagine would exist to exercise its judgment, a matter emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, a quality which is by its nature indefinable. If that House were to perform these functions adequately, its membership would
272
need independence and authority in equal measure. We certainly had the independence in the previous, unculled House; we lacked the authority. I suspect that we may have a little more authority now, but, semi-reformed as we still are, we still lack the authority that we need.
Would the authority of a fully reformed House be enhanced by the suspension of the Salisbury convention? I listened to the noble and learned Lord with great care, as I always do, in view of the deep respect in which we all hold him. I was not quite sure whether he implied that we should abolish the Salisbury convention. I do not think that he did. If that is true, I again find myself in agreement with him, and not merely for reasons of grandfilial piety.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the Salisbury convention did not begin as a convention at all but rather as an agreement between my grandfather and the then Leader of the House, Lord Addison. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was quite right to refer to it as the Salisbury/Addison convention rather than merely the Salisbury convention. It was designed for exactly the same reasons as the noble and learned Lord gave, and, as he said, it worked. But since then this temporary agreement has been transmogrified into a convention.
When I first became Leader of the House in 1994, it seemed to me, on inquiry, that it was not entirely clear what the convention said. I was given a number of different definitions, including one from my noble friend Lord Carrington, which was, predictably, infinitely the most satisfactory one. So, in a rather lengthy and boring speech and in exchanges before and after the 1997 election débâcle, I rather impertinently tried to define what it said. As no one actually disagreed with my efforts at definition, I came to the conclusion that I was not too far out. The convention says that the House will not vote at Second Reading against a manifesto Bill or pass a wrecking amendment during the remaining stages. After consultation with the learned Clerks, I understand that, in the final analysis, it is for this House to determine what constitutes a wrecking amendment.
Although, rather like the noble and learned Lord, I am sceptical about the doctrine of the manifesto, I find it difficult to see that it would be wise for this House, reformed or not, to oppose a specific commitment which formed part of the election platform of a new government. Equally, in purely practical terms, I think it is a little silly for us to vote at Second Reading against a Bill which we wish to delay. After all, it sets the Parliament Act clock ticking rather earlier than would otherwise be the case.
My time is well up. As far as concerns the Parliament Act, I hope that the Government will look again at the speech last Friday of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—the noble and learned Lord had some extremely sensible things to say—if only to clarify the workings and the legality of the Act. I am very pleased to see that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is to answer the debate. He may want to add a little more to what he said last Friday.

273
It is an important debate. I hope that it will be the first of many and that it will inform those who should develop proposals for a full stage two. On that subject, I hope that the Government and both the main opposition parties can co-operate in a public rather than a private forum—perhaps the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses—to try to build consensus for a full reform at stage two rather than indulging in a cosmetic exercise. Such consensus will, I hope, produce something a good deal better than the "Wakeham B" element, with which I fear we may be landed.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we most certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the powers of your Lordships' House at a time when, although there is no immediate proposal before us, manifestos, I suspect, are being drafted.
This debate has given me the opportunity to read a great deal of recent, and not-so-recent, literature on the subject. I wish that I had the time to read more of the fruits of that exercise to the House. I shall, however, refer to an article in The Times by one of my favourite columnists, Simon Jenkins, with whom I often strongly agree and sometimes, like today, strongly disagree. Our debate last Monday, in my view, showed your Lordships' House at its best, precisely because of the combination of scientists, "ethicists", lawyers and thoughtful lay people. Mr Jenkins did not like that. He wrote:
"On Monday night, British stem cell research was left in the hands of a group of people with no democratic, professional or territorial legitimacy".
He added:
"On the whole I prefer to be ruled by those for whom I vote. I did not vote for any of this lot".
I would be surprised if he voted for any of the other lot, at least its majority, and I am surprised that he did not notice that we were actually letting the other place have its way. But it gives me a welcome opportunity to say a few words about the vexing issue of legitimacy, notably in relation to the Salisbury convention and the primacy of the House of Commons.
I shall begin with the Salisbury convention and add one or two points to the important statements made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Its thrust is, in the words of the noble Viscount's ancestor in 1945, that,
"it would be constitutionally wrong when the country has expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate".
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a former Leader of the House, whom I am delighted to see in his place, repeated in similar terms more than 40 years later that this House should not,
"wreck any measure which the Government had made plain at a General Election they proposed to introduce",
because,
"the country had, by implication, given its verdict".
274
Fifteen years later, the Wakeham report went even further, saying that,
"where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the Second chamber".
Most of the time, this view is taken almost as a constitutional dogma. Even the Constitution Unit, in its research paper on reform of the House of Lords, states:
"Although the Convention rests on the debatable assumption that measures included in a Government's general election manifesto are de facto approved by the public at large, its force remains".
Does it, though? I suggest that there is quite a progression of completeness in the "debatable assumption" moving from the notion of "proposals which definitely have been put before the electorate" through measures on which "the country had, by implication, given its verdict", to "elements of the general election manifesto" which, in practice, means the text of a manifesto, lock, stock and barrel.
One must be allowed, in following this line, to raise a few obvious questions. What is the exact status of such manifestos? Who has prepared them? How democratic is their base? What role do manifestos play in election campaigns? To what extent can it be assumed that voters are in fact familiar with them, or even with their elements? What do we know about voter motivation? How can it be shown that the implication that voters have given a verdict on manifestos is actually correct? To say nothing of the most complex question: in these fast-moving times, how should we constitutionally deal with changing priorities and preferences on the part of the electorate? Would it not be more democratic and legitimate at times to set aside the manifesto and start again?
Earlier authors were perhaps less precise but also more plausible on this score. To quote Bagehot on this point:
"I answer that the House of Lords must yield whenever the opinion of the Commons is also the opinion of the nation, and when it is clear that the nation has made up its mind. Whether or not the nation has made up its mind is a question to be decided by all the circumstances of the case, and in the common way in which practical questions are decided".
Admittedly, this "common way" begs a number of questions, but I would argue quite strongly that neither snapshots of public opinion nor elections for five-year terms provide all the answers. To be sure,
"the people are the only legitimate fountain of power".
But James Madison, who coined the phrase, starts his argument from this point and does not end it there. In his view it follows that the different powers, admittedly in the American case and therefore separate—legislative, executive and judicial—have to derive their legitimacy from the people by different channels. General elections are but one such channel and one that is, for example, inappropriate for the judiciary.
It is most certainly not my intention to devalue elections, but there is a kind of fallacy of misplaced concreteness in the uncritical identification of the will of the country with a party manifesto, and in that of legitimacy with majorities constituted by, say, 43 per

275
cent in general elections. If we go back to the sources of the modern constitution of Britain, we encounter less mechanical and hence more plausible views which remain relevant.
What conclusions should we draw from such reflections? I suggest, not very dramatic ones. However, it seems to me that we must not turn the Salisbury convention into the dogma of sacred party manifestos nor should we doubt the right of your Lordships' House, as constituted today, to scrutinise, amend and, from time to time, reject legislation. The plurality of talent and experience assembled in this House, the patent independence of many of its Members, the way we conduct our business and the restraint we exercise in our relations with the other place are themselves sources of a legitimacy which transcends the simplistic concepts sometimes used even in distinguished newspapers.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I welcome the debate and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on initiating it. So far this has been an excellent debate, which is another way of saying that I agree with virtually every word that has been spoken. I agree wholly with both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The only qualification I have is in relation to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who knows that my views on referendums are not quite the same as his. Otherwise, I found myself in complete agreement with the points that have been made. In my comments I wish merely to reinforce those points.
The Parliament Acts have to be considered in the context of our constitutional arrangements. I believe that the constitution that evolved in the last half of the 19th century—what is often termed the Westminster model—has served us well. It may not be perfect, but it has proved preferable to the alternatives. It has delivered a number of attributes that cannot be delivered by other systems on offer. It delivers, among other things, accountability, coherence, flexibility and effectiveness.
It is the element of accountability that I wish to emphasise. This is a core, a fundamental, attribute of our political system. Our system ensures that one body—the party in government—is responsible for public policy. Electors can choose between parties based on their electoral programmes. If electors disapprove of the policy adopted by the party in government, they can sweep it out at the next election. There is no dispute as regards who is responsible for public policy. The party in government may be powerful between elections, but come election time, it knows that the ultimate power rests in the hands of the electors. There can be no buck passing, no hope of staying in office, in the face of electoral rejection.
Our constitutional arrangements deliver that accountability. The electoral system facilitates accountability. So, too, does the relationship between
276
the two Houses of Parliament. The second Chamber is complementary to the first. This House fulfils a number of functions and, in my judgment, it fulfils them well. It fulfils them in a way that is qualitatively distinctive. As such, it adds value to the political process. The relationship is, I believe, fundamentally sound, allowing accountability to reside in the elected first Chamber. The second Chamber can question, but can neither block nor override the first Chamber if the first Chamber insists on getting its way. We can ask the other place to think again; we can offer amendments to legislation; we can force government to justify what they are doing and we can raise issues that otherwise might be neglected. As a House of experience and expertise, we can fulfil those tasks in a way that complements a Chamber of elected, full-time and, increasingly, career politicians.
The Westminster model has been challenged in recent years. It has been challenged by the changes made to the constitution. These, to some extent, have undermined the Westminster model but have not destroyed it. In part, this may be because the Government, though intent on change, have no coherent alternative model to offer. Constitutional changes have been disparate and viewed essentially as discrete reforms. The Government knew on entering office what they wanted to do, but had no idea as to where they thought they were going.
The second challenge has come from attacks on the remaining relationships within our constitutional arrangements. One of these challenges has been to the role of this House and its relationship with the other place. As we have heard, that relationship is governed largely by the Parliament Acts and by the principles on which those Acts rest.
I believe that the relationship between the two Houses, governed by the Parliament Acts—I shall come to the Salisbury convention in due course—is about right. We can, if we choose, vote against a measure, forcing the other place to think again. If the other place, the elected House, decides that it wishes to proceed with a measure, it is entitled to do so. I believe that is right. I believe that it is fundamentally democratic in a way that two elected Chambers would not be—I very much follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—and I believe that the present arrangement serves the nation well. It retains the fundamental attribute of accountability while injecting into the process a body of expertise and experience, something that is not on offer in other systems. I believe that is a very real plus to the political process.
For those reasons, I am keen to retain the present relationship. I believe that those who challenge the position of the Parliament Acts are doing this House—and, more especially, our political system—no favours. I am appalled when Ministers or Members of the other place say, in advance of any discussion in this House, that a particular measure must not be rejected by your Lordships. This House is perfectly entitled to exercise its powers. Some people may disagree with the judgment made by your Lordships, but that is no reason for challenging the power exercised by this

277
House. It is, rather, a case for saying that those who disagree should engage in a reasoned debate on the substance of the issue.
Similarly, I would caution against condemning the other place for deciding to exercise its powers under the Parliament Acts. I agree that it should do so on a discriminating basis, but it is entitled to do so if, after reflection, it decides that it wishes to insist on its original measure. It is the elected House; it has the legitimacy to exercise that power.
There is no qualification contained in the Parliament Acts as to when the other place may or may not exercise its powers under the Acts. We may disagree with the decisions of the other House—we may regard its decisions as outrageous—but that is not the same as saying that its actions are constitutionally outrageous. Its reasons for exercising the power may be outrageous, but the exercise of the power itself is not constitutionally illegitimate. The distinction is an important one to draw.
Given that the relationship is, in my opinion, about right, what then flows from that in terms of where we go from here? I am opposed to fundamental change. I see no reason for an elected second Chamber. I see even less reason for a part-elected/part-appointed Chamber. That would be a purposeless institution, the worst of both worlds. I have argued that case before. I do not want to digress on it today.
My focus here is the Parliament Acts. I see no convincing case for any reduction in the powers of this House. Hence, I do not believe that the capacity to delay legislation for a Session should be reduced. The other place needs time to think again. Indeed, I think this House needs the leverage of a one-Session delay if it is to ensure that the other place pays attention to what it says.
Conversely, I can see the objection to extending the powers of this House. I believe that the Royal Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, got it about right in arguing that the provisions of the Parliament Acts should be left as they are. The only qualification made by the Royal Commission, that the Parliament Acts themselves should be protected from amendment by the Parliament Acts, is eminently sensible and I agree with it. The conclusion reached by the Royal Commission applied to the reformed Chamber, but it applies equally well to the Chamber as presently constituted.
Perhaps I may turn now to the Salisbury doctrine—although, following the point of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, at the time it was not a convention. Indeed, it was not even produced by the then Lord Salisbury; it was of course produced by, as he was at the time, Lord Cranborne. So, rather than the Salisbury convention, what we really had was the Cranborne doctrine, which was enunciated in 1945.
There have been significant developments since its enunciation. The Parliament Act 1949 was subsequent to the enunciation of the doctrine. Since then, of course, there have been the Life Peerages Act and the House of Lords Act. This House is now predominantly
278
a body of life Peers. No one party has an overall majority and it is constrained by the provisions of the 1949 Act.
Given that the Parliament Acts, on my argument, get it about right, I ask the same question as others: do we still need the Salisbury doctrine? On balance, I think, yes—but in modified form. The Government are elected; we should normally defer to the other place. But we should not offer a blank cheque. I am not persuaded that we should ever have done so, But now I think that we are in a position where the new constitutional arrangements provide a peg on which we can reflect on what the position should be. In my view, the Salisbury doctrine should constitute what I would describe as a second-order, or a soft, convention of the constitution.
There are exceptional circumstances in which we should be prepared to divide on Second Reading and, if the House so decides, to refuse a Second Reading. I agree with the argument advanced by the Royal Commission. We need to review the doctrine and, in effect, generate criteria—or, if you like, guidelines—as to the circumstances in which that might occur. The Royal Commission, I think correctly, said that no concrete dividing line can be drawn between when it would be acceptable and when it would not. But we need some criteria, some reference point. Indeed, I refer back to the debate in your Lordships' House in 1993, initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he identified two criteria that might be employed. We should build on those.
In doing that, it does no harm to the constitution. The Parliament Acts are in place; this House can bring to bear its experience and expertise. If absolutely convinced that there is a case for rejecting a measure—if there is a solid intellectual case and there is evidence that supporters of the Government in the other place share the misgivings of this House—we should not be afraid to use those powers under the constitution to ask the other House to think again. I put it in general terms. We need to refine it further.
The effectiveness of the relationship between the two Chambers, if it really works well, would be shown by the fact that we do not need to refer to the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention. But they do need to be in place.
I have overrun my time. I shall conclude with one final observation. The debate on the reform of this House has demonstrated that generally there has been an absence of a capacity to engage in constitutional discourse. We used to have that capacity in this country; we lost it in post-war decades and we have never really regained it. We talk about changes to the constitution but really do not have the capacity to talk about the constitution as a constitution. We need to regain it if we are to discuss the role of this House in the serious manner that it deserves.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in introducing the debate, said that we did not have a separation of powers; we

279
had a balance of powers. I should like to argue that the balance of power has now been disturbed. We can no longer be satisfied that our current arrangements are ideal. They are not. We should think hard about all these various problems—and this is a good occasion on which to do so.
The 1911 Act was passed at a time when the franchise was limited. Much has happened to the franchise, even since the 1949 Act. The development in party political structures, in voting patterns and so on has meant that, more than ever before, the danger of the excessive power of the executive is today the major problem of the British constitution. It is not that the other place should not be sovereign; that we concede. But that does not mean that the executive should get away with as much as they do get away with. That is a problem that we have failed to address in the past 50 years or so.
The "Cranborne doctrine", as it is called, was very helpful in 1945. I say that because, as the noble and learned Lord said, the 1945 Labour Party came into power determined to change fundamentally the nature of property ownership in this country. That actually challenged a very basic part of the constitution. It had to be accommodated because it had won the people's support. I see the Cranborne doctrine as saying that this House, which, in the imagination of the people and in fact, represented the property classes more than any other place, will not stand in the way of a popular government who mean to attack property.
However, we no longer have a party that will attack property—sadly, or happily, as the case may be. So we are no longer in that situation. But I also believe that the Cranborne doctrine 2 has made the Cranborne doctrine 1 somewhat irrelevant. The reform of your Lordships' House has meant that we shall never again have a situation in which one party with an inbuilt majority has the ability to frustrate legislation time and again in a kind of wanton fashion.
We must ask ourselves whether the Salisbury doctrine 1 is now of any relevance. As everyone else has said that it is, I shall say that it is not. I do not say so perversely, but once you move away from a fundamental difference—namely, what the 1945 Labour Party represented in terms of the notion of property ownership—the Salisbury doctrine I becomes a further limitation on the powers of this House; in other words, it is not part of 1911 nor part of 1945. It is a further restriction; in other words, that this House will not do certain things, which it perfectly legitimately can do. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Norton, say that, in a sense, Salisbury or no Salisbury, we must exercise our powers, limited though they are, to the full.
By and large, this House has been shy in exercising its full powers. I have been in this place for only 10 years, but I have many times heard people say, "We cannot actually go against the other place. They are the elected Chamber, so we really ought to concede. If they have rejected our amendments, we should not insist upon them". We have done so because we have that additional doubt about our legitimacy. Again, the
280
reform of your Lordships' House has at least diminished our illegitimacy. We are slightly less illegitimate than we used to be, but I do not know whether or not we are more legitimate. My own preferred solution would be a fully-elected Chamber, but that will never happen so we may as well not worry about it.
We must decide upon the precise nature of our function. Although we are supposed to be a revising Chamber, and so on, I gather from what my noble friend Lord Peston said that there is a mild air of, as it were, ineffectualness hanging over us—we do various things but no one takes a blind bit of notice. If, occasionally, we do something that is important, people like Simon Jenkins criticise us for being effective. The problem is that our powers and abilities are not used efficiently under the current arrangements.
One of the matters that one should raise in a legitimate and open way and which should be reconsidered is the restriction in the 1911 Act on the Finance Bill. If we are not able to amend it, we should at least be allowed to discuss it. There is no reason why this House should not be able to discuss the Finance Bill in great detail. We know that we cannot amend it, but we are not even allowed to discuss it. I believe that to be a great waste of the talents that we have in the House. If we are to have no power to change any legislation and we are going to be allowed to exist, I believe—I have argued this point before—that we may as well become a committee of the other place; that is to say, we would discuss all the Bills and, as it were, amend them, but our amendments would have no force until they were agreed by the other place. That would be a much better use of our time. Any Bill from there would come to us after Second Reading. We would then discuss it thoroughly, much better than those in the other place could do, and then we would send it back to them in an improved fashion. We would not need to engage in this legislative fight all the time.
Either this House has powers that it exercises and is taken seriously, or we have no powers. At present, our powers are limited by one or other convention, or some bullying, and we may as well not bother. There is a kind of constitutional confrontation to be had here. We ought to forget or rescind the Salisbury doctrine. We should have slightly more edge in our debates.
I do not believe that manifestos are serious documents. I have spent much time during many elections at polling stations and knocking on doors on behalf of my party, but I cannot say that I have read any of the manifestos since 1970. I doubt that anyone else has done so, not even Members of Parliament. They are not serious documents. Indeed, the doctrine of the Labour Party when I was, as it were, in the rank and file was that, basically, every Labour Government flouted the manifesto upon which they were elected. There is a great belief in that respect in the conference; indeed, the conference derives its moral energy from knowing that a government are about to betray their manifesto. Therefore, I do not believe that we can take manifestos seriously, unless, as the noble and learned

281
Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, they consist of propositions that the government in question intend to embody in law and put to the people either by way of referendums or in clearly demarcated pieces of legislation.
On many occasions during the debate on the reform of this Chamber mention was made of the fact that, when people were asked, only 2 per cent of them had noticed that the reform of this House was part of the Labour Party manifesto. But, to me, that was neither here nor there. Whether or not people read the manifesto is not the problem: in our constitution the party in power gets its way. The only question is whether it should get its way arbitrarily, wantonly and without caring to listen to us. If the government are to be made to listen to us, we should have fewer, rather than more, restrictions on how effectively we can exercise our powers. The more that we can push our right to make them think to the limit, the better the constitution will be. Therefore, I believe that the Salisbury convention has had its day; it should be retired.
4.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always fascinating to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Desai. If I may say so, he talks an enormous amount of common sense and it is always fun to listen to him. I enjoyed his mea culpa, in which he said that he had not read any party manifestos since 1970. Of course, if I were unkind, I might suggest that, had he done so, he might not be sitting where he is today. However, I shall not say that.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate because it is on a fascinating subject, as well as being topical. There is no one in this House—or, indeed, very few other people—who could surpass the noble and learned Lord in knowledge of the constitution. I do not wish to consider what the composition of this House should be or what might happen in the future. Those matters are for another day. But I believe that my noble friend Lord Cranborne was right when he differentiated between the powers of the House and the authority of the House. They are two totally different issues. Of course, if you want power, it must be an elected Chamber. But I personally would be wildly against that because, although it may be democratic and all that jazz, we would take on a major confrontation with another place, which would be perfectly disastrous.
I was interested in the Salisbury convention to which the noble and learned Lord's Motion refers—or the Salisbury/Addison convention, as we are now told it should be called. This has been passed down like a royal diadem from generation to generation, even though it started only in about 1940.
Viscount Cranborne: 1945!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. If he had just kept quiet a little longer, I would have said that, but I do so on his prompting.
282
The Salisbury convention has always been treated with respect and dignity and great efforts have been made—with success—to ensure that it is not infringed or tampered with. As your Lordships know, it was introduced first by the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Cranborne when the House of Lords was a very different place from that which it now is. Your Lordships' House then consisted mostly of hereditary Peers, the sons of their fathers, most of whom, but not all, were Conservatives. Some new Labour hereditary Peers were created, but for some extraordinary reason their sons usually became Conservatives. In those days there were no life Peers and no women Peers. So, however hard the powers that be tried to tip the balance of the House away from being predominantly Conservative, like a gonk it always came back upright again. That caused complications.
It was in that scenario that the late Lord Salisbury, with the late Lord Addison, devised the Salisbury/ Addison convention, which states that if a Bill is introduced by a government which has been foreshadowed in the manifesto, the government are deemed to have a mandate for the Bill and the House of Lords should not oppose a Second Reading, nor put down wrecking amendments. That has, as we all know, worked exceedingly well. But the question which the noble and learned Lord's Motion suggests is: should that principle still continue? After all, in the days of the inception of the Salisbury/Addison convention, the House of Lords was a largely hereditary House, largely Conservative, with some Bishops and some Law Lords. We now have life Peeresses or life Peers and women Peers. The majority of the hereditary Peers have been vaporised.
The composition of the House of Lords is—and let us not forget it—a composition which is exactly what the Government wanted. They said that they wanted all hereditary Peers to go—"It is in the manifesto", they said. All was set to get rid of all hereditary Peers. Then the Government changed their mind and said, "No, we want to retain 100". So the engines were put into reverse and 100 hereditary Peers were retained. The House of Lords is, therefore, now a House the composition of which is exactly what the Government wanted and what the Government chose.
Someone said to me yesterday, after we had the debate on the possibility of changing the Wednesday debate to a Thursday, "Of course, you would be against any change". I was rather miffed by that remark, particularly as I voted with the majority. I replied, "I am not against change, I am in favour of good change". Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I question whether now is not the time for change.
All the speakers in the debate, other than the noble Lord, Lord Desai, have, I think, inferred that the Salisbury convention is good and should be kept. I could see the antennae of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General bristling against such reaction. I am fascinated by that. I shall look forward to the noble and learned Lord agreeing with me when he replies to the debate. He is a great moderniser. He would change anything, whether it moved or did not move, provided

283
that it constituted a change and provided also that it did not involve taking on the parliamentary draftsmen on anything so fundamental as changing an "a" to an "an". I came across that on the House of Lords Bill when I tabled an amendment to refer to an hereditary Peer rather than to a hereditary Peer. All the powers of the noble and learned Lord came to the fore. He said that my amendment was completely wrong because the parliamentary draftsmen had said so. Therefore, one can alter anything other than matters on which the parliamentary draftsmen have made a pronouncement, even when that is a matter of adding an "n". I do not think that that amendment was too much for the noble and learned Lord's intellectual powers but I think that it may have been too much for his gladiatorial powers.
I am therefore excited at the prospect of having the noble and learned Lord on my side and on the side also of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I can assure him that that is more comfortable than having him against us. The real and simple point is that if the House has changed so much, is it right now to keep the regulations and practices which were appropriate for a bygone era when the House and its composition were totally different? If the House is now—to use that awful phrase which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House used—more legitimate and more authoritative, do the government of the day need to be protected from the forces which are no longer here?
I can see the argument. I shall wait with fascination to hear it trip off the tongue of the noble and learned Lord; namely, that if a government had just been elected it would be a bore to see the House of Lords throw out a Bill which had been in the manifesto. I can understand that but I doubt that it would happen all that often.
But if the House of Lords is to be, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House told us, a check on the executive, should it not be given the freedom to do that? It is, of course, a democratic fallacy—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on this—that anyone who votes for a candidate of a political party accepts, holus-bolus, everything that is in the manifesto of that party, which almost certainly is never read.
There is an argument that the Salisbury convention has served the House and the Parliament well, so let us leave it alone. The noble and learned Lord might think that that is a good old Conservative argument. But I am beginning to think that there is a greater argument; namely, that times have changed, conditions have changed, the composition of the House has changed and the time has come for that particular convention to change too.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Cross Benches and, indeed, to the noble and learned Lord for having introduced this timely debate. Surely the question is whether the recommendation of the Royal Commission that some new consensual arrangement should be devised to re-establish practical working relationships between the
284
two Houses without amendment of the Parliament Acts should be adopted, or whether some statutory provision is to be imposed to debilitate the delaying power of your Lordships' House.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, abuse of the Parliament Acts can be redressed by a self-denying ordinance. Albeit that we debate under the long shadow cast by stage two, as heralded by the White Paper, the electorate is surely entitled to know the answer of each political party to the question that has been put either in the manifesto or in a perfectly clear statement of policy in the election campaign.
I only intend to refer to two recent developments: achievement of parity voting potential and the routine resort, or threat of resort, to secure Royal Assent of government Bills under the Parliament Acts (whether mandated or not) which has generated a form of resistance in this House not only in the manner of speeches but also in a new dimension of insistence which has to be addressed by the spirit of the doctrine—the approach of Lord Cranborne—not by the convention as such.
The achievement of parity voting potential constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances which deprives the Cranborne convention as such of any justification today. The routine resort to the Parliament Acts is said to have arisen on account of a single example—the War Crimes Act—on a non-mandated Bill. But the fact of the matter is that the Cranborne convention, which related only to mandated Bills, was observed from 1911 until the advent of this Administration. In any event I believe that this Administration would have extended it to non-mandated Bills. It is just unfortunate that the single example should have been used as a convenient precedent.
The purpose and substance of the Cranborne convention no longer exists, but the spirit of the doctrine was no more than a self-denying ordinance. As Lord Shackleton said in the bench-mark debate of 19th May 1993,
"Lord Salisbury produced a solution that made it possible for this House to function … as well as it could under difficult circumstances …it … is not recorded officially anywhere".—[Official Report, 19/5/93; col. 1786.]
The convention has always been implemented by a series of ad hoc arrangements on government mandated Bills. The Royal Commission's recommendation 4.21/4.35 favours an updated version of the Cranborne convention—it calls it the Salisbury convention—which would represent a new balance of political authority as between the two Houses and reconsideration of the mandate doctrine. As was pointed out by Lord Rippon of Hexham in the bench-mark debate, manifestos are long, turgid and rarely read by the electorate; and the manifesto doctrine should apply to policy which has been made perfectly clear at a general election.
What kind of new arrangement can be devised by consensus in the interests of the orderly conduct of the practical working of this House and the retaining of comity as between the two Houses? It is by convention,

285
not by codified and defined amendments to the Parliament Acts which would import inflexibility and denigrate the ethos of independence. Is it not the approach of the Cranborne doctrine (in other difficult circumstances) which is of commanding fundamental importance? Is it not the only approach compatible with our largely unwritten constitution for bicameral government under the Queen in Parliament?
Perhaps the acknowledged function in a new form of convention for the House to delay Bills by rejection or amendment where the nation is substantially divided should be expressly reaffirmed. Perhaps on Bills which substantially affect the constitution—here I have to declare an interest—it should be for Parliament and not the government to decide whether there should be a referendum. Perhaps the sovereignty of each House over its own rules and procedures should be firmly entrenched—in so far as one can entrench anything under our constitution. Perhaps there should be some reappraisal of the exercise of our right to insist. Perhaps some accommodation could be had enabling the government, save in exceptional circumstances, to have their business irrespective of any mandate at a general election. I take on board much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in that regard. But I also take on board the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, concerning the mandate. With respect to the House, what he said seems entirely right.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on introducing such an important debate. There would obviously have been many more Members present if the debate had taken place on a Thursday. We shall hear from all the parliamentary leaders in this House. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some answers. When I refer to "leaders" I include potential leaders.
There has been little constitutional change; I am sure that some hereditary Peers may not agree. We had what might be called the Cranborne deal—a deal between the noble Viscount and the Lord Chancellor. The noble Viscount did very well to get that deal. He did so well that he was sacked by the leader of his party.
We are assured that it is a slightly more legitimate House—but only slightly. There is still not real reform. I am delighted to note the agreement of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The assumption is that we shall have real reform. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agrees. I await his speech with great interest.
I speak briefly as I have spoken often on this issue. I turn to the two main issues: composition and powers. On composition, I understand that what the Government have in mind—as I am sure we shall be told—will be based largely on Wakeham but with perhaps an even smaller number of elected Peers. I want to make this clear, as have other noble Lords. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I
286
should be utterly opposed to any smaller number of elected Peers in your Lordships' House. A hybrid House would not be helpful to anyone. I hope and believe—the Government should be so aware—that if such legislation were brought before us it would be opposed strongly from all sides of your Lordships' House
One has only to consider the matter to realise that it is something of a nonsense. My noble friend Lord Peston referred to this. How would this small number of Peers be elected? How would it be done? Would they represent constituencies or regions? Would election be by the PR system? Would they be independent Peers; and, if so, how? Would they stop political parties putting up candidates?
Another important factor is the size of your Lordships' House. As at 15th January this year there were 691 Members of your Lordships' House. Under the deal agreed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, there could be another 32 Labour Peers. That would take the figure to well over 700. There will be a few new independent Peers. We already have more than 160 Cross-Bench Peers. We shall have some elected Peers. So we may have nearly 800 Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that to proceed along those lines would be raving mad. Perhaps we could have some voluntary retirement as The Times suggested. I am not sure how to describe what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, implies by his action: that for Members to retire voluntarily could be well paid! We are assured by the Leader of the House that it is not true.
Perhaps there could be not voluntary but compulsory retirement. Rarely do anywhere near 700 Members of your Lordships' House vote. In the major and very good debate on Monday just over 300 voted. I know that there will have been some genuine abstentions, but we very rarely have more than 400 voting. Perhaps we should have some voluntary or compulsory retirement. I am not sure whether 75 is an appropriate age—perhaps it should even be a little younger. That would mean losing some important Members of your Lordships' House. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, earlier, and there would be many others. I certainly would not want to lose the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The real issue of composition has not been considered seriously.
I reiterate what a number of noble Lords have said about powers. It is vital that real powers are given to a second Chamber, if only to provide a check on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, described as the elected dictatorship. We have that now in another place, with a government majority of more than 170. The noble Lord, Lord Pym, was sacked for daring to suggest such a thing to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Although an elected government will have their way in the main—and so they should—surely we must all accept the right of a second Chamber to revise and, if necessary, seriously work to delay legislation introduced by a government with a substantial

287
majority in another place and to ask the other place to think again—or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, to deter a government from getting away with it.
Reference has been made to the Salisbury/Addison convention. That was a deal. The noble Viscount's ancestors seem to have been good at striking deals. They struck one with Lord Addison and stopped him calling it the Addison convention. The problem is that it is based on manifestos. My noble friend Lord Desai said that he had not often read the manifesto. In many years of canvassing on the doorsteps, I have not yet found anyone who had read a manifesto of any political party, yet the Salisbury convention is primarily based on a manifesto that nobody has read. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, likes what he calls the "flexibility" of the convention, although he conceded in a debate on 7th February last year that there were,
"some doubts as to what comprises its detail".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; col. 394.]
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in a Politeia lecture that the convention needed redefining. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said in his report that the new House should pragmatically consider changes that might be needed, with a new convention. Even some real experts such as Dicey, Jennings or some of the experts in your Lordships' House cannot agree precisely on what the Salisbury convention means. Even the grandson does not really know what it means.
The convention is very uncertain. I prefer statutory certainty. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agreed with me on that, although I doubt it. I do not want to provoke him, but he certainly seems to be in favour of some change. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us that the Government's position is that in a future House, reformed under a new Labour Government, we shall have certainty.
In conclusion, I have some questions for the leaders who are to reply to the debate. Do they agree with the Wakeham commission that there should be a small number of elected Peers in a reformed House, which presumably would number nearly 800 in total? Will existing Peers have the right to voluntary retirement, as has been suggested? Will there be any reduction in the real powers of a second Chamber? I hope not. As has been said, a government with a majority in another place should have the right to get their business through generally, but that does not mean that we should not have powers to say and do something about it. Will all that be in a manifesto, so that we can base any new Salisbury convention on what is said in that manifesto?
I accept the need for a second Chamber and its vital role of providing checks and balances on the elected dictatorship in another place. I hope that we shall always have such a Chamber.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who introduced the
288
debate with impeccable timing one week after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, enabled us to debate the Parliament Acts. Today we have concentrated more on what we must learn to call the Salisbury/Addison convention. I am sorry that time did not permit the noble Viscount, the present Lord Cranborne, to tell us a little more about the development of the thinking of his distinguished ancestor, the Prime Minister, on the issue in the 19th century and about the precise circumstances in which the convention was negotiated between his grandfather and Lord Addison. Perhaps it should more properly be called a pragmatic understanding that has stood the test of time. Given how long it has endured and its tacit, if not explicit, acceptance by all concerned, it has achieved the patina of a convention. There is some merit in its perpetuation, provided that it is recognised that, at least at the margins, it must adjust to changing circumstances. In extreme situations, it may need to be set aside. That cannot be done with legislation.
The convention, or understanding, rests on one or more fictions. The first is that the manifesto of the majority party in the other place must be treated as having received in its entirety the imprimatur of the electorate. The second is that, throughout its period in office, the majority party, presumably by its continued communion with the electorate, has achieved a legitimacy denied to other participants in the legislative process. A moment's reflection will show that neither proposition can be accepted without massive qualification. I see no reason why a second Chamber, as an institution, should not be accorded a measure of legitimacy acquired by time and the successful discharge of its functions. I like to think that the current House might qualify on that basis.
Be that as it may, the real question that the Salisbury/Addison convention endeavoured to address, with considerable success over many years, concerns the proper balance between the elected and the non-elected Chamber. We have been told by members of the Government in this Parliament that we are a subordinate House—sometimes they flinch from putting it quite so baldly to us, at least in this Chamber—and that we are a revising House. The House can provide a critically important constitutional role.
Majorities in the other place come and go, sometimes rather rapidly. This House, however composed, continues. We have a special duty to maintain the constitution and safeguard its working. The Salisbury/Addison convention does not deal adequately with that.
It may, for example, be our duty to give the electorate a chance to express a view on measures of deep constitutional significance emanating from the other place. In a sense, that thinking underlies some of the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. I believe that the respectable argument which should be put forward from the Conservative Benches is that the electorate should be given greater opportunity to reflect on the constitutional implications.

289
I turn next to our revising role, which has been acknowledged—if in a rather patronising way, I am bound to say—by the Government. I acknowledge that the detail of legislation which is conceded to us may be important and that all too often neither the government in the other place nor the other place as a whole have much time to reflect on detail. An absurd position arose during the passage of one Bill when the Government tabled more amendments than the Opposition.
There has been a considerable increase in the number of guillotine Motions, by convention in the past resorted to sparingly, so that consideration of parts—perhaps important parts—of a Bill often have not been scrutinised before being received in this House.
Then there is the unattractive spectacle of Divisions taking place some days after the debates to which they relate. Of course, the procedures of the other place are not for us to debate. However, the revising role, which is ours, must take some account of the effectiveness of the scrutiny to which measures have been subject before they reach us. In that regard, we should give more attention to, for example, the details of finance Bills. I believe that that point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I entirely agree, recognising of course that governments must be permitted to get their finance Bills in due time.
I hope that all those points will suggest that there is a busy and important role for us in this House and that anything less will weaken the control that the legislature—both Houses—should have over the Executive and, ultimately, the bicameral basis on which our constitution depends.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, first, I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not only for initiating the debate but for choosing such an opportune moment for it. My perceptions have been sharpened by the debate, which is welcome; but I must admit that it has also weakened my certainties, which is always uncomfortable. I would almost prefer to go away and think about what has been said than to contribute anything of my own.
Given all the global factors today, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the exaggerated belief by governments in their power. I am worried by what the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Norton, said about a partially elected House possibly being the worst of all worlds. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about the need to rebalance the relations between this House and the other place, and I shall say a word or two further about that. And I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf and the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Barnett, among others, about the doctrine of the mandate and, in particular, the role of manifestos, about which I shall also say a few words.
Indeed, I suppose that I am most worried—in that I am trembling on the brink of a loss of faith—about what the next stage of reform should be and when it
290
should come about. However, I take it that on these occasions I do not have to speak with the authority of my party behind me but, rather, I can listen to what is said and judge it on its merits. My view is that we should wait for a while before further reform to see how the House settles down under its current arrangements. And I believe that we should spend much more time—this point is aimed at the Government—in seeking a consensus. When reform comes, it is more likely to be wise reform if it takes place in the second Session of the new Parliament and not in the first.
Meanwhile, I want to make some remarks about the question of the balance between the Lords and the Commons and also about the doctrine of the mandate. Initially, I believed that these would be mildly heretical remarks, tested against the conventional wisdom of the day. However, the conventional wisdom has been turned on its head, and now I find myself very much in support of—although, in some cases, perhaps a little beyond—views which have already been expressed.
I believe that in this House we all accept the description of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that the Commons is the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. We refer in commonplace language to its primacy. However, primacy for the Commons arises from its evolution as a result of the extension of the franchise in 1832, 1867, 1884 and since. Its role, status and primacy stem from its elected and representative character, which earns it legitimacy, authority and respect.
The paradox which has been widely expressed is that much of the discussion about the future of the Salisbury doctrine before today stems from the fact that this House, as it now is, is, in the words of the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, more legitimate, more authoritative and more worthy of respect. In other words, the House of Commons has earned its primacy through change and through the advance of democracy, ultimately resulting in legitimacy. However, the argument now is that, because we are more legitimate, we should exercise less power. I do not believe that that is logical and I do not believe that we should accept it.
Indeed, I do not consider that the argument is about legitimacy at all; it is about the dominance of the House of Commons and about the fear of competition from this House. It is a conservative rather than a radical argument because, the more legitimate this House becomes, it is about either maintaining the status quo or redressing the balance. My fear is that the instinct behind this leans towards a unicameral system, with this House merely as an appendage of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested.
The existing balance is not the only formula for constitutional peace in a democracy with a universal franchise. We all know that the United States has found a different method. That is a different system altogether and I would not argue in favour of its balance of power. However, the United States has an elected House of Representatives and Senate, and it is an effective parliamentary democracy by any standard.

291
Therefore, it should not be axiomatic that, as this House becomes more legitimate or representative, in whatever way, its powers or the use of them should be in any way diminished. Indeed, I argue that they should be more often heeded and this House more often trusted.
I turn to the question of the doctrine of the mandate. That has always seemed to me to be deeply flawed, and I believe that there is a need to approach it with the greatest caution. It is flawed because it is constructed in circumstances which do not enable the government of the day—particularly a new government succeeding one of a different political character—to know what they will find. All governments coming into power for a first time open the books and find something different to what they expected. In those circumstances, it is wholly flawed to pursue a course which may now be the wrong one.
It is also the case that all governments are thrown off course by war or disaster or, for that matter, by changes in world oil prices. There again, it would be quite wrong for a government to pursue a course which was no longer relevant because circumstances were different. The duty of every government is to do what is best for the country.
Standing against what is best for the country, the manifesto is a relatively small thing. Indeed, essentially the manifesto is a convenience for political parties. It is helpful to party management because the leadership of the party is able to make its policies at a time when the leadership's views are most likely to be accepted. It enables the leadership to go its own way in its manifesto if it chooses, or to find a way to reconcile factions. That is the essential purpose of a manifesto, and it is irrelevant to the government of a country.
For all governments, the motto is, "Heads I win, tails you lose". "Heads I win" is true if a government implement their manifesto, and "Tails you lose" is true because a government can choose to depart from it, for a reason that they claim is good and sufficient.
There is no basis for a doctrine such as the Salisbury convention to rest on the doctrine of the mandate. No election has been fought and won on the basis of a manifesto—elections are fought and won according to the state of the country, the opposition and the leadership of the parties. Elections are often won despite a party's manifesto. The Labour Party won despite the unpopularity of nationalisation; the Conservatives won despite the fact that no one trusted them with the National Health Service; and the Liberal Democrats often get support from those who are not as committed as that party is to adopting a strong view on Britain's role in Europe.
It is not possible to claim that manifesto promises, especially those at the bottom of the pile, receive any meaningful approval. They may not have concerned the majority of voters at all. A referendum is not a referendum on each item contained in a party's policies.
292
The helpful Library Notes referred to the remarks that Lord Salisbury made in 1964. He referred to the Salisbury doctrine as a "broad guiding role". That is exactly what it should be, and how we should approach it. We should do so in the light of the deeply flawed doctrine of the mandate, and exercise our own judgment about when it is, and when it is not, appropriate to carry out the letter of what it suggests.
My current fear is that the Government, after inadequate consultation, will put into their manifesto detailed proposals for the next stage of reform, including proposals as to the number of elected Members, and that they will leave only the nuts and bolts of parliamentary procedure to the cross-party committee of both Houses, which has been promised. They will claim that the doctrine of the mandate gives them the opportunity to carry out what they have put into that manifesto. I hope that my fear will not prove to be justified.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are rightly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate. He is an example to us all for having brought the matter to our attention. He has always been a zealous defender of the rights of this House. Indeed, he is one of the most formidable parliamentarians of modern times.
The noble and learned Lord may be the last Member of this House to hold senior Treasury office and later to become a Law Lord. His is a unique constitutional voice.I hope that he will grace us with his presence for many years to come and is not lured into early retirement—we read about this in the press—by the bounty offered by the noble Baroness the Leader of House.
This debate is the second movement of a duet, of which the first part was played—very persuasively, I thought—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, last Friday. When two distinguished former Law Lords touch on the same issues, I sit up and listen. Indeed, as a junior Minister, whenever I saw the noble and learned Lord even stirring, I knew that I had better sit up and listen; otherwise, I would be in trouble. I shall be interested to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
I hope today that the noble and learned Lord will be less dogmatic—he is at his least attractive when he is being dogmatic—than when he swatted away the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. He declared then:
"There is no ambiguity in the Parliament Acts which needs to be corrected".—[Official Report. 19/1/01; col. 1328.]
No, it was the former Master of the Rolls who needed to be corrected.
If only I could be as sure of anything as the Government have been on the constitution. Some might say that they have been too clever by half. New Labour has asserted that our well-tested constitution has no place in a modern Britain and that hereditary Peers are indefensible. The Human Rights Act 1998 is

293
treated as the Holy Grail and closed lists for European elections are unchallengeable. Even if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is so sure about those matters, will he accept that the most radical change in this House for 350 years casts at least some doubt on the relationship between this House and another place? That is the proposition that lies behind this debate, and I agree with it.
I shall not repeat what I said last Friday about the Parliament Acts. Suffice it to say that, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I think that there is room for doubt about the validity of the Parliament Act 1949. The Government, by their ready resort to the use, and the threatened use, of the Parliament Acts, have moved those Acts on to a new plane. They have used them in relation to details that were not in a manifesto—they did so with closed lists. They also used the Parliament Acts on a moral issue to stop your Lordships' amendments being discussed in another place. They now threaten to use the Parliament Acts in relation to hunting and trial by jury. That unhealthy enthusiasm to press the constitutional nuclear button itself justifies this debate.
I turn to the Salisbury convention. It was born in the old Britain that New Labour set out to sweep away and in an entirely hereditary House which was wholly dominated by the Conservatives. It was a gentleman's agreement but it served us well. Indeed, it became, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne declared in 1996—he has been unduly modest about his role in this regard—a settled part of the old constitution. My noble friend was right—it was a long speech, but it was not a boring speech. That declaration ensured that major government business that was set before the people at a general election was not wilfully wrecked by this House. It was never intended to stop this House from improving legislation. It never envisaged that this House must bow down, like Pavlov's dogs—or, dare I say, like poodles—before another place on matters outside the manifesto, on details of legislation or on great moral issues, which should always be subject to a free vote.
However, by passing the House of Lords Act 1999 the Government tore up the old rules and deliberately altered the terms of trade between the two Houses. It is hard to argue that one must do away with the old House but keep the old conventions. The conventions that the Government seek to sweep away are those that act as checks and balances on executive power. The conventions that they want to keep are those that suit their purposes. However, in November 1999, New Labour brought into being a new House, backed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses. As the Jay doctrine put it, they created a House that would be "more legitimate", that would "carry more weight" and that would keep the "executive better held to account".
It has not always felt like that. When the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sums up, I hope that he will answer two specific questions. First, does he agree that on subjects such as NATS and trial by jury, in relation to which the Government tried to do what they pledged they would not do before the
294
election, this House has an unfettered right to throw out the relevant legislation? Does he agree that no government should use the Parliament Acts in such circumstances?
Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept that using the Parliament Acts across two Parliaments, although allowed by Clause 2 of the 1911 Act, would break all constitutional practice since 1911? Every government at the end of every Parliament have dropped unfinished business and left it to the next Parliament to decide its course. Until the threats over hunting, I thought that that had become, by usage, an established part of our constitution.
Perhaps the Government thought that the 1999 Act would change nothing other than the names on the pegs downstairs. In a speech in the autumn of 1999, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I warned that that simply could not be the case because the Government were changing the constitutional ground. They could not expect change not to follow. The old certainties had gone and we cannot know where things will end. All the relevant factors—the powers, composition and functions of this H ouse—are inextricably involved in the settlement that will evolve. That is why we have consistently argued that the Joint Committee of both Houses must look at composition as well. It would be extremely helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General could tell us when that Joint Committee will be set up, because if he can do so, then the prediction made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we are all wasting our time might, on this occasion, not be correct.
I do not believe that even this new House has the right to challenge the other place on Second Reading or by tabling wrecking amendments to core manifesto items of legislation. In a modern world, only an elected House could do that. But given the new composition of this House, the Salisbury convention deserves to be reviewed and this debate is part of that process.
The upper Chamber is no longer as it was in 1945 and the pace of politics itself has changed. Today, the global economy moves much faster than politicians imagine. It is difficult to reconcile an absolutist approach of total compliance by this House over five years with the modern world.
And I totally agreed with the noble Lords, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Desai, and, in fact, almost every other noble Lord who spoke on this subject, when they referred to the status of manifestos. Election promises can be vague and easily manipulated by governments, who reserve the right to jettison manifesto promises if things change. If governments can have the right, why cannot Parliaments too have a say on circumstances as they change?
While the case for giving manifesto promises a relatively easy ride in the first few Sessions of a government's life is largely unassailable, subject only to Parliament's overriding duty to safeguard the constitution, it does not mean that that should automatically extend to the whole five years.

295
In the view of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, are there no limits to a manifesto promise or, indeed, non-manifesto proposals that this House can be made to accept? Does the noble and learned Lord think that the 1999 Act changed anything? Will New Labour observe the Salisbury convention as it understands it, exactly as agreed in the 1940s, when they come back into Opposition; or is its view that a new doctrine now applies, perhaps the one explained by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on "Question Time" last week? On cloning, she implied that this House must not challenge the vote of the elected House. The noble Baroness then weakened her case by stating that she would vote differently from another place on hunting. Perhaps the doctrine applies to Members of the House but not to the Leader.
But be that as it may, what is the position as the noble and learned Lord now understands it? Do the Government believe that this House must invariably defer to a vote in the elected House? If that is the case, then Mr Blair expects far more of this House than Mr Attlee or Mr Wilson expected of the hereditary peerage. It shows less legitimacy, freedom and respect for the distinguished people who have been put in this place than was owed to the despised ranks of noble Dukes, Marquesses and Earls.
Surely the Government cannot seriously claim that the votes of this House must echo the votes of another place on every issue, under threat of the Parliament Acts. That way unicameralism lies. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He too has spotted the dangers of that or, even possibly, the New Labour plot. Lurking behind unicameralism is a threat of a new presidentialism, with no effective containing power. That cannot be the way for Parliament.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for initiating this important debate and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will make it crystal clear that that is not the view of this Government, whatever the impression that has been given in the past.
5.14 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, but in particular I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, on this occasion and on these matters, has been our mentor, as so often in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that 1945 was a different world. It was. It was a land of grinding poverty, gross inequality, no protection for women or minorities, inadequate education, no National Health Service, no Human Rights Act and vicious legal pursuit of those who had different sexual preferences from the alleged majority. So I am glad that we have moved on, and not all the work has been completed.
Quite a number of specific questions have been put to me and I shall do my very best to answer them in the 20 minutes only that I have.
296
The constitutional arrangements that we have in our country, as I see them, depend on a respectful balance between the powers of both Houses and that adjective I contend to be of great importance. However, it is not, and cannot be, contended to be an equal balance. It is a balance, as has been recognised by all of your Lordships who have spoken, in which this House must ultimately defer to the Commons.
One of the specific questions that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is whether this House has the unfettered right to overturn, for example, measures in relation to NATS or jury trials. The answer to that is to be found in the Parliament Acts and the answer is plainly: no. That is what the law of our constitution provides. Therefore, this House has, literally, the inability continually to foil the determined, settled will of the Commons. That is what the 1911 and 1949 Acts provide, and they are quite independent, in that connection, of the Salisbury convention.
Therefore, it is not a question of convention alone; it is enshrined in two statutes. The noble Lord and others referred to our debate on Friday on the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. The purpose and entire consequence of the first part of the Bill—irony of all ironies to be savoured, bearing in mind what has been urged this evening—would have been to entrench absolutely the 1949 Parliament Act. My modest suggestion was that it was not needed because there is no ambiguity about the 1911 and 1949 Acts taken together. Whether or not I am right, the consequence of the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, would simply have been to entrench absolutely, without any question of doubt, the power of the other place.
I am most grateful for the scrupulous, civil analysis of our constitutional arrangements which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. The basis of the balance is the self-evident proposition that the Commons must be supreme because, as he said, of its periodic accountability to the electorate at an interval of not more than five years. I do not believe that any noble Lords addressed that simple proposition as he put it. I cannot think why that may have been.
It cannot be and it should not be an absolutist supremacy. Nevertheless, it is a supremacy that we need to recognise and in my case, for the reasons absolutely and clearly adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I applaud it. After all, the supremacy of the Commons must ultimately depend on the reflected virtue of their popular election. If your Lordships take a different view, let us hear it unambiguously because I have not heard it.
The basis of the Salisbury convention, therefore, does not change by virtue of any alteration in the composition of this House. That is the further question with which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me to deal.
Some of the descriptions of our arrangements which were put from various quarters did not, I think, recognise the true British nature of our constitution. I referred to the respectful balance but that balance does

297
change subtly and sometimes quite imperceptibly according to time, according to occasion, according to topic.
I shall give one or two recent examples. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred to the matter. On Monday we had a most extraordinary debate. Whatever one's private views or whichever way one voted, it was a classic. I was forced to agree with someone in the lobby who said that the Commons could not have matched it. Casting my mind further, I do not believe that there is another legislature in the world—I am sorry to be unduly chauvinistic—that could match it.
The point about the quality of the debate and the fact that plainly some votes were altered by debate, and not by preconceived settled prejudice, is that we had it in our hands to destroy the regulatory scheme. The Minister made the position plain. No one was unaware of the seriousness of our power, but on that occasion we decided that, although we had the power and the authority, we would not exercise it because we considered the issues on the merits.
That is why I have tried to say to the House—I hope respectfully—that I despise no duke, I despise no marquess and at least one earl is my very good friend. That is also why these rather bald descriptions of what may or may not be done do not meet the spirit or practice of this House as it is at present or as it will become.
I turn to an alternative example, which came from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that demonstrates the opposite. He spoke of the deep respect that we give to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its reports. Your Lordships will remember that recently on sentencing powers the committee strongly urged the House not to accept the form of a Bill that I was introducing, in part, concerned with sentencing provisions. I shall not go into the details as your Lordships know them. On that occasion, I said that I would pay particular attention to what your Lordships thought and, as is known, we went away and reconstructed the Bill. It was a government amendment, but it was a government amendment with virtue.
That is an example not of the power of this House, but of the authority of the argument and of the quality of that committee. However, we all know perfectly well that that committee is of recent origin. It has developed its own authority and not its own power; it has its own influence on the minds of your Lordships and on the way in which debates are carried out. I draw on those two examples only to suggest that some of the descriptions in absolute terms have been mistaken because they do not go to the living heart of this place.
I turn to another proposition from the noble Viscount with which I disagree. He urged the extension of post-legislative referendums. I believe that if one thinks that through one will consider that the consequence would be bad for both Houses because it would take away from the authority of Parliament. I believe that to be wrong.
298
I do not believe that the Salisbury convention has fallen into disuse. What is it? It is a doctrine that has become accepted in constitutional circles so much so that it has come to be known as the "Salisbury convention". It has been raised in the language of politics to become a constitutional convention. That means that it is definitely part of our constitution. I certainly regard it as such and so does my party. In my view, it follows that it would be, in the words of a grandfather, "constitutionally wrong for any party or individual to suggest that, whatever the outcome of a general election, this convention would not hold".
Of course, that was not my grandfather but the grandfather of the noble Viscount. That is a quotation from the most interesting lecture that the noble Viscount delivered in 1996 in full expectation, first, of a general election and, secondly, it may have been—I have been reading John Major's excellent autobiography over Christmas—in the full knowledge of the likelihood of a Labour victory.
I turn to what was said about the manifesto. It seems that your Lordships despise manifestos and the doctrine of what I suppose I could call "implied acquiescence". The noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord Barnett, Lord Rodgers. Lord Strathclyde and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, all seemed to be a little on the sniffy side in relation to manifestos. It reminded me of Mr Mervyn Griffith-Jones in the case of Lady Chatterley's Lover at the Old Bailey when he asked the jury whether that was the sort of material that they would want their servants or even their wives to read.
It may be that not everyone believes every dot and comma of every manifesto and it may be that I am the only person in your Lordships' House who can say with any shred of believability that I have indeed read the Labour Party manifesto. Of course, the election engages the public mind on perfectly known propositions. I suggest that whether people read manifestos or not is not really the point.
I turn to the sad state of the nation as exemplified by an hereditary Peer and an historian, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He now seems to have taken to the revisionist and militant tendency. I believe I heard fall from his lips the fact that he actually wanted a change. I fell back in horror. Had I not been seated I would have fallen further.
The noble Earl and I have a good deal of regard for each other and fundamentally I do not believe that we disagree. I believe that we should maintain the Parliament Acts. If we have to look at the edges and the margins of the Salisbury convention let us do so. I do not believe in the unicameral system. The ability that we have, unsparingly exercised, is a powerful part of our constitution. But there are others.
If I may say so, generally it is foolish to overlook the other constituents of our constitution. We have a thriving free press that I am told sometimes brings about political consequences! We have the greatest Act of devolution of power from the central executive—namely, the Human Rights Act—that has occurred for the past 100 years. It is idle, because it is wrong and superficial, to say that we have a centralising

299
Government. Devolution to Scotland, to Wales, and if our hopes are fulfilled, to Northern Ireland, under the overarch of the Human Rights Act, is the greatest constitutional agenda that we have been able to contemplate for 100 years. That is not tinkering with the constitution. That is willingly putting on the executive the yoke of scrutiny by the courts.
That reinforces my proposition that this is an organic constitution because we do things differently here. I am aware of the constitutional arrangements in the United States and I do not find them as perfect because there has to be an election every two years and a rolling Senate which means that no one does anything apart from fund raise and stand for election. With great respect I believe that our arrangements are better.
There were a few specific questions about retirement age. The only retirement age that could possibly be contemplated is one five years beyond any period at which I presently found myself! The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde asked whether there can be voluntary retirement. It is available at the moment in the form of leave of absence. It is not enormously popular but it is there. Will there be a small number of elected Peers? Time and again the Leader has said that the Government accept the broad thrust of the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
Essentially nothing has changed that requires any modification of the Parliament Acts. I shall be deeply unpopular for, as I have said on earlier occasions, allowing fact to intrude, but a curious point is how sparingly that power has been used. It has been used very rarely indeed: sometimes because tempers cool; sometimes because compromise is available; and sometimes because an election intervenes. It is constitutionally available and under the Parliament Acts therefore constitutionally proper for carry-overs to occur. Whether they do or not is not for me to speculate.
It is sometimes a pity that speeches of criticism in this House—and even some areas of this institution are capable of improvement; for instance, having debates on Thursdays—do not recognise what is brought about in this country. Even the raising of issues, quite vigorously and often with a good deal of expertise, changes the course of public debate. I am told that our colleagues at the other end pay attention to public debate, particularly during periods such as this. The fact that we do not win every vote does not mean that we do not have influence. Some of the comments about the future were unduly doom-laden and reminded me of some of the gloomier passages in The Pilgrim's Progress. But cheer up, my Lords, the pilgrims succeeded.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord concludes, perhaps I may ask a question. As one who has won 10 general elections, I wonder
300
whether he is aware that the majority of voters pay far more attention to the candidate's election addresses than they do to the party manifestos.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, some do and some do not, but I believe that in most organised political parties the candidates' addresses have something to do with the party manifestos.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may ask about his reference to the future composition of your Lordships' House. He did not take note of my point that, unless major changes are made, there are likely to be 800 Members in the future. Would the Government be happy with that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have said that government policy is, by and large, to accept the general thrust of the Wakeham commission. That commission pointed to what it thought was an optimum figure. I did not want to intrude into private grief by suggesting compulsory retirement—even paid compulsory retirement—but, plainly, we need to address that matter. That gross figure is exactly that. Before the great reform of 1999 we had a notional attendance of well over 1,500. The interesting thing was that no one was sure of the number because some had not answered their Writs. Among the best jokes made was that by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who said that this is the only legislature in the world which can function only on the basis that a good majority of its Members do not turn up.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it falls to me now to make two comments. First, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I do so most heartily. With respect, the quality of the speeches abundantly justified the choice of my noble friends on the Cross Benches in choosing this subject for debate.
Secondly, I note that my Motion as it appears on the Order Paper calls for Papers. Your Lordships are inundated with papers—perhaps almost as much on the constitution as on stem cells. But my noble friend Lord Northbourne is also asking for Papers and I would not wish to deprive him of that or indeed anything else. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Boys and Fatherhood
5.34 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne rose to call attention to the problems experienced by boys growing up without the care of a father and to the case for more resources to be devoted to preparing boys to become responsible citizens and fathers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I want to pay tribute to the Government for identifying and addressing the problem of social exclusion. Recently

301
they accepted that many of the problems of social exclusion have their origins in the problems of men and boys. The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the failures and frustrations of some men and boys in our society; to look at the causes; and to explore some solutions.
It is in no sense intended as a criticism of single mothers. I see single mothers as one of the groups who are the victims of the changes which have taken place in our society in the past two decades. I fully recognise that women and girls have problems, too, but today I want to focus your Lordships' attention on men and boys.
Most men and boys in our society today are coping well with the seismic economic and social changes which have taken place in the past few decades. But a significant minority of boys are growing up uneducated, unsocialised and convinced that they have no future in the legitimate economy or as parents. In a recent survey conducted by Adrienne Katz of 1,400 boys, 13 per cent were found to have low self-esteem, low motivation and low confidence. Boys in that group said that they were uncertain about their responsibilities and depressed about their future. Twenty per cent of that group had been in trouble with the police; 11 per cent were deeply depressed or suicidal. I should point out that today three out of four suicides in our country are males. One of the group said, "There is no position in society for us to grow into". Those are significant words.
This is an underclass of young men, often detached from the socialising influences of the family, often believing that they are unfairly excluded from the opportunities of the consumer society. If we want to reduce crime, substance abuse and domestic violence and to strengthen families, we must give these young men back hope and self-confidence. To do so should be an essential plank in the Government's policy of "Opportunities for All".
Many of these disillusioned and depressed young men are growing up in unstable or non-functional families. Many have been abandoned by their father. About 750,000 boys today have no contact with their father. Others have a poor relationship with their father, who may be violent or take little interest in them. Yet other fathers are working such long hours that they cannot give their sons the time they need. Those phenomena have been neatly described as the "Dad Deficit".
In the previous generation the number of people marrying halved; the number divorcing trebled; and the number of children born outside marriage quadrupled. What are the causes of all those changes? I suggest, first and foremost, changes in the nature of work due to technological change and globalisation. In the past 50 years, 2.8 million traditional full-time men's jobs have been lost, many of those in the past 10 years. The Armed Services have been decimated, the mines have been closed and there is little demand for strength and physical courage. A strong but uneducated young man can no longer count on being
302
able to support his family. Some families in our country have had no man in work for three generations. It is hard to come back from that.
There has been a reaction against Victorian moral values and shared responsibilities towards the pursuit of personal lifestyle. There has also been a shift in social attitudes which has tended to make women's and men's roles in the family interchangeable rather than complementary. Some men feel that they no longer have a role in their family of which they can be proud.
We should not seek to place blame for those changes; indeed, change can and should be healthy and good. But we must blame ourselves for the fact that we have lamentably failed to manage this change. We have failed to recognise the damaging effect that the change has had on some groups. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some statistics from the General Household Survey in order to put the picture in proportion. Today 66 per cent of families are headed by a married couple; 9 per cent are headed by a cohabiting couple; and 25 per cent are headed by a lone parent, of whom nine-tenths are mothers. There are 1.7 million single mothers, who often struggle against the odds to bring up a child, and 1.5 million boys who live in families without a resident father. Children need the security, predictability and commitment of two parents who love them. Boys need fathers. Harriet Harman recently said to fathers:
"Your children need not just your money—they need you".
Why do fathers matter? There is overwhelming statistical evidence that boys with a poor or non-existent relationship with their fathers are more likely to be violent, to do less well in school and to be bullies or to be bullied, and they are three times more likely to be involved in serious or persistent crime. It is known that the single most effective way to help boys is to encourage their involvement with their fathers. But there are other factors. Families without a father tend to be poorer. Sixty-five per cent of single-parent families grow up in poverty and are statistically more prone to stress, accidents, illness and abuse. Boys who are abandoned or abused by their fathers have a deep psychological wound which I have come across again and again. They feel that they have been rejected by the person who should matter most in their lives. Boys also need male role models to socialise them, show them how to be decent men and how to treat women and teach them to cope with their instincts and emotions. A father's interest can motivate a boy to work in school.
I interject here that the reason for socialising boys is not that they are so awful but that they have so much to offer. Some birth fathers will fail and set their boys a bad example. When that happens it may be better for a boy to have a surrogate or substitute father who can provide many, if not all, of the things that a birth father can offer. But from where are all these surrogate fathers to come? Only a limited number of suitable men are prepared to give other men's sons the love, time and interest that they need. Mentors, male school teachers and youth leaders can help, and I shall refer to them a little later.
What is the price of inaction? Any society that fails to nurture and socialise its children and pass on to the next generation accumulated knowledge, skills and experience burns up its social capital. The prognosis for such a society is not good, and it is a slippery slope. A boy who has not known loving care in the family will himself find it difficult to form a stable family or become a good father to his own children. The golden chain is broken. I believe that we need to look urgently at the way in which our society educates and socialises boys, especially those who are not lucky enough to have a caring father.
I turn briefly to the ways in which society can help, under three headings: helping fathers, helping good relationships within the family and helping boys themselves. As to fathers, there is a need for a fundamental change of heart and recognition that, however significant may be the role of the mother, for a boy the father's role is also very important. The first person who needs to accept that is the father himself. Until he is convinced of the importance of his role, he will not prepare and train for it, perform it properly or make the sacrifices involved. But mothers, teachers, social workers, employers and government also need to recognise the importance of a committed father's role.
To be a good father a man needs self-confidence, which primarily comes from being able to support his family, at least as we perceive the family today. It is difficult to see what other role a father can have. Fathers need a real job, not just a "MacJob". I suggest that to build self-esteem in fathers is an essential building block in socialising boys. Government should support caring fathers, especially those who are prepared to make a long-term commitment of some kind. Employers should recognise that fathers as well as mothers need time for their children.
I turn to relationships and family structures. Research shows that the outcomes for children depend to a great extent on relationships within the family. But it is also true that good relationships need the support of good family structures. Put another way, good relationships are much more difficult without good family structures. Relationships between parents are likely to thrive best if they are set in a long-term, committed partnership. At present, marriage appears to be the only formula devised by society to formalise and celebrate a long-term commitment. I think back to the debate last week. It is possible that there are better structures but we have not thought of them yet. Those who resist the support of marriage often talk of it as a kind of ball and chain, and to some no doubt it is. However, recent research in the United States shows that marriage can produce substantial benefits for both parents:
"On average married people have better health, longer life, more and better sex, greater wealth and better outcomes for their children".
Perhaps we need to look at the image of marriage and develop alternatives for those who are put off by the baggage which marriage has accumulated, or its cost.
I turn finally to support for boys as they grow up. A boy's failure in school can condemn him to failure for life. Boys need motivation to learn. The encouragement and interest of a father, or another man whom the boy admires, can be, and is, a powerful motivation for boys. There is an urgent need for more young men of integrity as teachers in our schools, especially at primary level, and as youth workers and mentors. Boys need adult male role models from whom they can learn how to behave and develop their masculinity in constructive rather than anti-social ways so that as they grow up they find legitimate outlets for qualities like courage, loyalty, the competitive instinct and love of adventure.
As boys and girls grow up they both need opportunities gradually to grow away from the family towards independence. Essentially, they need somewhere to go and something to do outside the home, because hanging about the street corner is for most boys an almost certain precursor to juvenile crime and substance abuse. Boys need opportunities to develop self-confidence, social skills, friends, companionship and a sense of belonging. All boys particularly need support when they come to the transition from school to training or work, and from living at home to living independently.
It is a scandal that so many local authorities have been allowed to decimate their youth provision. In this context many of the better local authorities spend over £300 per young person per year. The figure for Brent is £18, and I am aware of others which are not dissimilar. It is a scandal that successive governments have allowed local authorities to sell off playing fields. As in France, every community should have access to playing fields, walks, cycle tracks, sports facilities and good youth services, both statutory and voluntary. There is a huge job of work to do in rebuilding facilities for young people.
The Government's Connections programme is an excellent initiative, but it is no good having such a programme if there is nothing with which to connect. The Connections programme must have the necessary services and opportunities for young people. There is a need for activities which boys and their fathers can share. Youth provision should not be an optional extra.
As an alternative to education, training or work there should be an option for every 16 and 17 year-old boy to spend six to 12 months in an environmental and community service corps. That would be voluntary, residential—away from home—and modestly paid. It would train young men in personal health, fitness and basic life skills and develop self-esteem and the ability to work in a team through adventure, endurance and calculated risk. Also, by giving back service to the community, it would be a stepping stone to independent living and enhance a young man's confidence and social skills and therefore his subsequent employability. A regular routine, feeling valued, friends and a sense of purpose would reduce exclusion and depression and enhance future prospects for a young person. The scheme would cost

305
money. But so does building prisons. Surely it is better to spend money building up people than building prisons.
Finally, there is the new citizenship and PSHE curriculum. That offers a powerful motive for changing attitudes and developing skills. I believe that every child before he leaves school should learn about the parenting needs of children and the consequential responsibilities of parenthood; the need to prepare for parenthood; that in the age of effective contraception, to conceive an unwanted child is a form of child abuse on the part of both parties; the importance of considering and respecting other people's needs; and how to communicate with others, and so on.
Some of the changes which I have suggested may seem difficult and some may seem impossible. But, on the analogy of global warming, if the outcomes of past and present policy are leading us to disaster, the sooner we start to address the impossible the better. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sure that, with the support of the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in introducing the debate has used any time flexibility. I hope that other noble Lords will ensure that they keep to their allotted times.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for instigating the debate and for introducing it with such vigour and commitment. His concerns for young people are well known. He has covered much ground today already. His timing of the debate is, whether by chance or foresight, excellent, preceding, as it does, a conference tomorrow at the National Children's Bureau entitled "From Lads to Dads" which will explore issues relevant to the role of fathers. As a mother of two sons I am particularly interested in issues related to the development of boys. I, too, believe that they should and have much to offer.
Today I shall examine three questions. First, who are disadvantaged boys? Secondly, what may be the impact of that disadvantage? Thirdly, what are the implications for national and local policy and practice? The area is extremely complex and worthy of much research and discussion. I look forward very much to the contributions in the debate today.
Your Lordships will know that there is a vast literature on the emotional lives of children, suggesting that in many cases boys are not encouraged to talk about or show emotion, or to communicate with empathy. That is a real potential problem between fathers and their children, and surely even more so if other disadvantages are present.
So what is disadvantage? This is not necessarily material, although it may be; the materially well-off may be emotionally disadvantaged. Disadvantage is when circumstances so impinge on a person that his self-esteem becomes damaged which may lead to destructive behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord
306
Northbourne, vividly described that. Boys are subject to unrealistic media portrayals of masculinity and manliness, expectations of being tough, male unemployment, families without fathers or positive male role models, bullying and discrimination of many kinds. It is little wonder that so many boys perform badly at school in their early years at least, and that mental health problems and suicide rates are high among young men. A boy growing up without a father figure may be more dependent on other role models. He may not have role models such as teachers at school. He may be vulnerable to distorted impressions of what masculinity is. Women are often charged with the affective, caring parts of schooling and of rearing children.
When I was involved in child development courses in schools I knew only one male teacher of child development. I knew only one boy who ever took the course. We cannot afford to exclude boys and men like that. They need positive encouragement to think of themselves as jointly responsible for parenting. That is increasing.
What is the impact of disadvantage? I believe that there may be confusion with identity and the lowering of self-esteem. If people do not feel good about themselves, they are less likely to care about others. They may turn to risk-taking and unsociable, even violent, behaviour.
We are concerned in this country with teenage pregnancy rates. The Government have set up a special unit to investigate the issue. In my experience girls do not get themselves pregnant. Do we know enough about the fathers? Are they disadvantaged? What is going on here? It is sad to be an unintentional parent; it is difficult to be an immature one. Boys can of course walk away. Many do. Surely, we need more research and interventions for young men, as well as young women, in relation to teenage pregnancy and more education about relationships, including parenting for both boys and girls.
I believe that young people are mainly responsible and care and that they deserve a voice. They worry about making good relationships. Recent research into young people's health concerns by the Institute of Education stated that,
"the most striking finding was an abiding concern amongst young people about the effects of relationships with family and friends on their sense of well-being"
and a need for more emotional support.
Research by the National Children's Bureau on pregnancy and parenthood showed that boys in public care wanted to get married and have children early, whereas boys in school wanted to delay marriage and parenthood. The boys in care wanted the love and the fathering they had not had. Sadly there was little evidence that they knew how to go about it or how to handle complex relationships. Work among young fathers in prisons by the Trust for the Study of Adolescence—I declare an interest as a trustee—showed a desire to be a good father and a view that life skills education in prison was of more use than many other activities there.

307
These pieces of research incline me to think that we need to listen more to what young people say they need and to base our responses on actual needs.
What can be done to help? Programmes such as Sure Start may well make a contribution to helping disadvantaged children. Sex and relationships and citizenship education in schools encourages young people to discuss together their hopes and expectations about relationships. The national healthy schools standard encourages incentives for inclusive education and the creation of a positive ethos in schools where good relationships are emphasised and encouraged. There are examples in communities which help boys to explore issues relating to masculinity and fathering, such as the Active Fathers project run by the Community Education Development Centre in Coventry. Such initiatives should be encouraged and, very importantly, evaluated so that we learn what is working. As a basis for action, more research should be carried out into the relationship between disadvantage and parenting.
We have touched on a key issue of parenting for society. Parenting is a difficult job in the best of circumstances. We need to support and encourage men and women to do the job well and to develop incentives, in particular for disadvantaged youth.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wonder if I might draw to the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, the fact that we have now gained three minutes.
6 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, this debate is an extension of the debate that we had last Wednesday on marriage and the family, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us this further opportunity to debate a subject of very great interest and importance for the future of our nation. However, this debate is rather more specific. It concentrates on the importance of fathers in families as role models for preparing boys to become good fathers, and thereafter good citizens.
As the Member of Parliament for Croydon North East, I recollect attending a function in my constituency, when I said to a young man aged about 11, "What are you going to do when you grow up?", to which he replied, "I want to be like my Dad". There your Lordships have the answer. There can be no doubt that the influence and example of our parents shapes our future attitudes and our success in life—sometimes, sadly, our failures—and, in addition, of course, the future success or perhaps failure of our nation. Of course, it is true that for the first few years of a child's life the influence of a mother is paramount. Your Lordships may recall the words of James Barrie:
"The God to whom small boys say their prayers has a face very like their mothers'".
But later in a child's life, at about the age of seven, the father becomes the role model for boys.
308
In last weeks' debate, and again today, it has been pointed out that some 25 per cent of our country's children live in one-parent families—about 22 per cent of them with their mothers rather than with their fathers. We may not like it, but it is a fact of life. It is therefore essential that we seek to fill this gap. That is the importance of today's debate.
In my village of Brasted, Kent, is the headquarters of RPS Rainer, of which I am a vice-president. The Royal Philanthropic Society is one of our country's oldest charities, founded in 1788 to overcome and to assist the increasing number of homeless children then infesting the metropolis. So the subject that we are debating today is not exactly new. I believe that Samuel Johnson said that all men—he probably meant women, too—need to be reminded more than they need to be informed. This is not a new problem.
For some 200 years, RPS Rainer has been working with disaffected young people through 45 projects across the United Kingdom. Because this debate is time limited, I mention only three with a direct bearing on the topic of the debate this evening. The first is the Breaking the Cycle project, which targets the most disaffected and excluded young people in order to help them to develop their potential and to progress to become fully integrated members of society. The second is the Fresh Start programme, which works with socially excluded young men, many of them in prison, some 65 per cent of them fathers themselves, with responsibility for caring for their young babies and children. The third is the Simply Dads initiative— a parenting project for young fathers.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is absolutely right when he says that children need the security, predictability and commitment of two loving parents. A comment was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in last week's debate that it may be that by the year 2020 the number of married couples in this country will be in a minority. The noble Baroness said that if that materialised, we should become one of the first countries in history in which marriage is not the basis of society—a worrying thought. Given those comments and the statistics, we have to find some way of giving boys a role model to guide them in their path to maturity. Of course, partners can do this, but many boys will be living with their mothers and will not have that advantage—hence the importance of the initiatives of the kind that I have mentioned and the programmes that have a track record of success.
Time does not allow me to carry forward this debate from fatherhood to good citizenship, which is, of course, a natural progression. But, fortunately, the next speaker will be my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He and I have a joint interest in citizenship initiatives—he as chairman of the Citizenship Foundation, I as the founder president of the Institute for Citizenship. I make only one point. Good citizenship is not a matter of chance. It needs to be taught. Thankfully, it is, at long last, now part of the national curriculum.
It is equally true, of course, that today's boys are tomorrow's good citizens. In youth, they also need to be taught. I suggest that they need to be taught the five

309
Rs, which, I remind your Lordships, are reading, writing, arithmetic, right and wrong. At best, those subjects probably can be taught, by example, only by mothers and fathers. Where there are no fathers, substitute fathers are important. The kind of mentoring programmes, run with such success over the years by RPS Rainer, and by other bodies such as local authorities and churches, are to be encouraged and applauded, as we this evening rightly applaud the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for enabling us to again debate this very important subject.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for this debate. I should also like to say how very much indebted we are to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for the work that he has done, ever since his days as Speaker, in the field of citizenship education. He has given a wonderful lead. If I may be permitted to disagree with him about one thing, it is in relation to his quotation from Johnson. I believe that it was the fact that we needed to be not so much informed as reminded. The problem is that many of those who are the subject of our debate this evening, the disadvantaged boys and young men in 2001, are in a position in which they need to be informed, and where there is too little to be reminded of.
The first point that I want to make to the House is that I do not see this Motion, which urges us to give more support to disadvantaged boys and young men, as directed to the Government. It is far too easy to look to the Government in these days. In many respects, the Government try to do too much and are expected to achieve too much. We need to throw back the ball of responsibility to the population at large—individuals, businesses, groups, churches, NGOs, charities, anybody and everyone. Too many think, "That is not for me". In saying that, I refer particularly to the business, commercial and professional world.
If one wanted to be simplistic, one would say that all of us are made up of two broad streams of attributes—heart, feelings, emotions and intuitions on the one hand; head, mind, intelligence and reason on the other. Those disadvantaged in terms of their rational faculties—I suggest that the group we are concerned about are certainly in that camp—are almost inevitably trapped, too, in their emotional ones. They often feel beleaguered, besieged and outcast, and hence suffer exaggerated fears and phobias, unmitigated by the intelligent analysis which is so important in balancing our emotions; and this in a world increasingly dominated by rational, materialist factors.
Those who fail intellectually are often emotionally illiterate. Abundant research has shown that that is so. Tragically, and again predictably, many of those we are concerned about merely exhibit the disadvantages of their parents. There is a terrible continuum of disadvantage which is so difficult to break. In the marriage debate in the House last week a good deal was said about that.
310
I should like to turn to a more difficult general issue. I refer to the context in which disadvantage occurs. The causes lie very deep and sometimes we make life easy for ourselves by not facing them. We live in an ever more competitive and aggressive world. Those two things go together in today's entrepreneurial society. It is an ever more insatiable society, because the modern market economy seems ignorant of the concept of sufficiency. It is a society ever more starkly materialist. The notion of vocation is becoming all but redundant. It is a society ever more self-centred, with the ideals of public service and the common good dying in our time. I exaggerate, of course, but not by much; and not at all if looked at from the ranks of the disadvantaged. The Social Exclusion Unit has produced a bumper edition entitled A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal. It makes sober reading and I recommend that those who do not have it should get it and read it. It shows how deeply we are in the mire.
It is important that we look these contextual realities in the eye because they have a profound cultural influence on those boys and young men, often delinquent, that we are talking about. We must also face the fact that the effect of the aggressive, insatiable, selfish ideology which now dominates not only this country but the western world begets in the disadvantaged an equal and opposite response—aggressive, selfish, often ruthless and often anti-social. It is no good our saying, "Theirs is unlawful and wicked conduct". From their vantage point, so much of what passes for success in our world has the characteristics of amorality, if not immorality. I refer to excessive greed and total selfishness. I am afraid that the society of which we are part finds it almost impossible to do much about that.
These young men and boys come from broken, dispirited homes—often no homes. They have no hope. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, they have no self-esteem. They have no good role models, no respect and no self-respect. They have no sense of moral worth and no belief in the relevance or use to them of conventional morals. They have little guidance. They have no moral identity or autonomy and therefore have no ability or wish to analyse and reason morally. It is a crippling combination. With the emotional illiteracy goes that siege mentality which is cousin to alienation.
I should like to say a few words about penal policy. Maltreated dogs bite; so do maltreated humans. Dogs are shot; humans are locked up. What is the effect? What do we do to boys in detention and young men in our prisons? Frankly, it is a farce; a tragic pathetic farce; a self-defeating, ludicrous farce. If the great British public realised that we spend more on boys and young men in our penal institutions than we would if we sent them to Eton, perhaps they would sit up and take a little intelligent notice. But we as politicians must.
There is too much political name calling. The days when women and blacks were the subject of crass generalisation have, thank goodness, gone. But how often do we resort to "yobs" and "hooligans'', with no

311
distinction between those to whom we are referring and no realisation of who they are, where they come from or what they do. I could wax eloquent about the Football (Disorder) Act, but I shall not. For much of the time we do not take them seriously.
I am deeply grateful to David Blunkett for the leadership he has shown in getting citizenship education onto the curriculum from Autumn 2002. We must not expect the schools to do that huge task for us, but how crucial it is that 5 per cent of the curriculum time will be devoted to a range of topics and to an enlargement of faculties that are crucial to the underpinning of citizenship. A sense of moral autonomy and of the ability to contribute to society are hallmarks of a good society.
Finally, I should like to refer to a programme being run by the Citizenship Foundation which may give the House a practical example of what can be done. It is designed to inculcate moral reasoning and to get young offenders to "flip" their attitudes towards law, society and authority by getting under their skin and putting them in the way of moral dilemmas which will engage them in thinking about the moral consequences of their conduct. One example is of a bail hostel located in an affluent area where most of the locals object. The young offenders are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the objecting locals, particularly where some of them have been the subject of burglary and violent crime. Funding of the project by the Youth Justice Board has led to some startlingly good results.
One of the areas in which we are backward in this country is in the development of moral reasoning and moral autonomy and getting young people suddenly to become excitedly aware of the fact that they can reason morally, that they are morally autonomous, that they can have an agenda of their own and that they are human beings.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss this important subject. No one has been more tenacious in drawing to the attention of your Lordships the need to support the family. It is somewhat daunting to follow such valuable and informed contributions.
We are living through a period of great social change. It is not something we can resist. For example, we can celebrate that in our society more and more people are living to an advanced age. In many families there are now four generations alive and in contact with each other. On the other hand, the birth rate has fallen and the size of the family unit continues to reach new low levels. In addition, geographic mobility, which is important in reacting to changing patterns of employment, means that far fewer people now live their lives in the area of their birth surrounded by a network of relatives and longstanding friends. And yet the means of keeping in touch with relatives and friends have never been easier.
312
However, as has already been referred to, not just the size of the family has changed but the structure of family units is now so much more varied than in the past. Yet we should acknowledge that the concept of the perfect family is probably more a theoretical notion than a practical reality. Although it is understandable that concerns are expressed about the facts, helpfully made clear by my noble friend Lord Northbourne—namely, that more couples prefer to live together rather than marry, that more marriages end in divorce, that more divorcees remarry and that more children are born out of wedlock—that need not necessarily present a picture of woe or despair.
I hope that noble Lords will allow me a personal reflection. When I began work as a probation officer, in some courts I attended we were faced with a stream of women living wretched lives because they were socially and economically locked into marriages in which the father of their children spent most of the family income on his own interests at the expense of the well-being of the family. These women were trapped in marriages that did not support them or their children and they had access to no other funding. Even if the court made an attachment-of-earnings order, the men often changed their employment. However, what was even worse and more striking for me was the prevailing attitude that this was the women's lot in life.
These experiences and others led me, as a mere man, to be an advocate of the rights of women: for them to have equal status with men, to have equal choice in their lives and to have equal freedom. Since those days, I think that we should acknowledge that some progress has been made. Perhaps it is not yet enough, but sufficient progress has been achieved for some men to have found it extremely difficult to adapt to the changed power of women in our society. As has already been pointed out, many men have found it easier simply to walk away.
However, the inability of some men to operate as partners in adult relationships by sharing responsibilities both inside and outside the home is not a reason to question the social and economic benefits of pursuing policies which are intended to enable about 51 per cent of the population to fulfil their potential and to contribute to the wealth and health of our society.
The task before us is to help more men understand the need to change and to help them develop new attitudes and skills. In many instances, more men are now able to claim that they represent "the new man", supporting the family unit, however that is constructed, and playing a much fuller role in parenting. However, we should not underestimate the change this entails. In the past, even the most conscientious fathers rarely changed nappies or felt inclined to cross the line they perceived to be the province of the mother. For that reason we need to acknowledge that full participation in the parenting of children is something that few men would claim to have had a role model for in their own fathers or that their mothers prepared them for it. In general, men do not have a great body of experience of a shared commitment to parenting. That is something which

313
needs to change. It is for that reason that we should not become too discouraged if progress towards such a high ideal is slower than we would wish or that some men simply prefer to go absent.
I suggest that the challenge before us is threefold. First, we must be clear in all we say and emphasise in all our policies that becoming a parent is not only a huge responsibility but that it is also a lifetime commitment. Parenthood is not something to be tried to see whether it is enjoyable. It is not an experiment. It is something from which there is definitely no escape clause. Some modern marriages might have clauses of that kind but parenthood is for the long haul. Whatever the age, the social circumstances or the family structure, parenthood is the activity in life which should endure. It involves putting first and always the needs of the child, however inconvenient that may be. Parents might seek freedom to please themselves but dependent children cannot. Children have a right to look to their parents not only for physical care and nurturing but also for love, constancy, security and optimism about the future. Too often, children have to accommodate to the needs of the adults in their lives. They deserve better than that.
Secondly, it follows that every child should be a wanted child. It should be wanted as a cause for joy and celebration. Never before have both men and women had available access to contraception. Probably never before has sex been so openly discussed. Pregnancy should not occur as the result of ignorance. Adults are free to choose their lifestyles but we must emphasise that this should not be at the expense of defenceless children.
Thirdly, we should highlight the positive changes and celebrate good progress. For example, more men now attend ante-natal classes; more men are involved in childbirth; and more are willing to offer support to mothers. More men are willing to adjust their patterns of work in support of their wives and partners. More men are comfortable with celebrating the achievements of the women in their lives and take pleasure in their successes. More men enjoy playing a full part in all aspects of family life, which is something that we should promote, celebrate and encourage.
We are all agreed that the family is at the heart of society. In supporting the family, we need to be positive about encouraging and enabling men to be full partners in this great responsibility. It is for that reason that debates of this kind are so welcome.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbourne for providing us with this opportunity. I should like to take advantage of it and pay tribute to his consistent and determined efforts on behalf of disadvantaged young men over many years.
Some weeks ago, I observed a scene of young men likely to have been without the care of a father. A 17 year-old was telling a group of other young men and two young women of his recent mugging. The narrator was bare-chested and only around 5 feet 5 inches, but
314
of a very athletic build. His mobile phone had been stolen by a gang and he felt lucky to have escaped so lightly. His audience was enthralled by his account. Afterwards, the young people spoke of the "bloods" in London. A "blood" was originally a term used to describe a youth gang in Los Angeles. Playing loudly in the background was music which featured the strong language which the boy had used, including references to women as "prostitutes" as well as other pejorative terms.
Young men who lack a good, consistent male role model may confuse masculinity with brutishness. This is why mentoring is so important. The most vivid example of mentoring for boys I have seen was featured several years ago in a broadcast of the BBC "Panorama" programme. An Afro-Caribbean professional male was shown helping an Afro-Caribbean boy with his reading and writing at school. We were told that the man would regularly help the young boy in this way. The climax to the mentoring scheme was a visit made by the boy to the man's place of work. The Afro-Caribbean New Yorker, who was the originator of this work, came to London. The response here was mixed. An obstacle came in the shape of the leader of a London authority who could not understand why the mentor had to be a man rather than a woman. Several years on, mentoring is now the bread and butter of well-recognised groups such as the Divert Trust, the Prince's Trust, the Depaul Trust and RPS Rainer, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Weatherill.
Last week I visited the Westminster Youth Offending Team. It was with great pleasure that I listened to their way of working with young people, often boys with absent or uninvolved fathers. They used mentoring together with restorative justice and close partnerships with others from different disciplines to try to crack the nut of offending behaviour. I admired the experienced staff and their dedication to their work. It seemed to me that their approach, based on good principles, deserves to meet with success.
Perhaps I should sound an optimistic note in response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who made some realistic but rather sad observations on the current penal system for young people. Some good work is being undertaken out there. The staff in the team are grateful for the resources generously made available for their work by the Government. However, my main concern remains that too much will be expected of them; namely, that public frustration at growing youth crime will put an end to this model, which promises good results with many young people. One has constantly to emphasise the great challenge these teams face.
The youth offending team ran an anger management group for young offenders, led by a female probation officer and a male police officer. Youth organisations will often try to pair up men and women as group leaders. This allows young people—our boys, for instance, or young men without the care of a father—to experience an example of a man and woman working closely, co-operatively and

315
constructively together. It is a widely-held concern among psychologists that young men who see parental couples only arguing—if a couple they see at all—will not know how to sustain a relationship with a woman. My noble friend Lord Northbourne alluded to this when he described the "golden chain", his example of couples working together for their own good and the good of their family.
I suggest that this area of good practice needs to be given special priority. It is vital that boys can engage with a good adult of their gender, ethnicity and social background; it is equally vital that boys can engage with a mixed gender couple of their own ethnicity and background—such as the house master and his wife that my father had affection for when he was at public school.
To conclude, over the past 20 years the British family has been undermined on many fronts, as we have heard, one of the most important being the lack of investment in housing, health and education. Investment then may have helped families to deal with the other great social changes they have experienced. We now need to resource measures such as mentoring, which can mitigate the dread effects of this decline. We need to invest in and repair our faltering public services to prevent further deterioration. That the Government are beginning to address these two closely associated issues is most welcome.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for calling attention to the problems experienced by boys growing up without the care of a father, and for his call for resources. I shall speak specifically of Caribbean/ British boys.
This issue has exercised my mind considerably, having worked with unsupported mothers in the Deptford area over some years. I ask myself the question: what can be done? How will resources resolve the question of preparing boys to become responsible citizens? Each time I am left with a further question: when does a boy become a man? We have the equation: man/woman, boy/girl. We know that a girl becomes a woman when she reaches puberty. Can we say the same about boys—or do we say that only about white boys?
I pose this question because I often hear from fellow Peers and people outside how well they were looked after by their "boys" in the colonies. "Hearts of gold" was often the expression used by some. I had the temerity to ask how old were these boys. Imagine my surprise to learn from some that they were often as young as 18 and certainly as old as 70. My predicament is whether there is a magic moment when black boys become men—or do white boys become men before black boys? I leave it to those with wisdom to enlighten me because I am miles away from a solution.
What then is the reality of the situation with which we must deal? Let me try to create a little setting. I ask noble Lords to reflect, if you will, on your first visit to
316
this House. Try to recall how awed you were with the splendour and greatness of this building, its contributors and their contributions. I suspect that, like me, you felt rather proud to be part of this great nation. Imagine the similar impact that this experience has had on the billions of tourists who have viewed this Palace. I ask noble Lords to think back: did you see anyone who looks like me? Did you receive any impression that black people were part of the tapestry of this nation?
There is one place where a black person can be seen; that is in the painting of the Battle of Trafalgar, where a negro is depicted as a snitch. I wonder whether noble Lords realise what impression that has on a young black person.
I ask noble Lords to imagine how the attitudes of those around us are formed. Interestingly, I know that it is from buildings such as these and from museums that our textbooks are developed. One is forced to believe that it is not by accident that one group of people have, throughout history, been treated less favourably than their white counterparts. We need now in this country greater resources to facilitate the unlearning that is required to change the attitudes of those who have been so treated and to establish a pride of belonging.
Much has been done, but much more needs to be undertaken if we are to find a solution. We must, first, recognise that the re-education of black children is everyone's responsibility. We need school booster groups: organisations of those who have survived this crisis and who are committed to the survival of their brothers and sisters. Such people are around and must be utilised. An effort must be made to restore the school as the nerve centre of the community by forming consortiums of various organisations and institutional representatives of the community, including even the street academics. The Teenage Kings is an organisation of young people who are determined that they want to improve their community as part of the whole, who respect and understand the National Anthem.
The future of Britain could well be determined by what this debate puts on the table today. If only half of it is taken on board and put into action, I believe that we can build a society of good citizens—but we must be aware that it is not going to be the same as the one that was there some years before.
I hear much talk about role models. I understand that there is not one Chair in any university in this country that is occupied by a black person. I can assure the House that over the years we have produced worthies, who can be role models to the up and coming generation. There is not one theatre owned or managed by a black person or group. If we examine the eminences in the Church, we can count on one hand those who have managed to break through the glass ceiling.
Every individual needs to feel valued and acknowledged to promote dignity and self-sufficiency. We should all enjoy, regardless of class, colour or creed, all that society has to offer. A two-parent family

317
is desirable but not always possible; but a supporting community, leading to a supportive society, builds individuals, encourages growth and gives a wholeness to the creation of good citizens. As the poet said:
"It ain't the rap, it's the map.
It ain't the man, it's the plan".
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us this opportunity to debate what is often an overlooked aspect of a much wider concern and provision for the young—a need which few, if we are honest, know how to address and which, therefore, many agencies both statutory and voluntary simply allow to go by default.
It seems to me that this is a debate about responsibility—duty. It is about our responsibility to society for a group of disadvantaged younger people, distinguished on this occasion in a quite politically incorrect way by their gender. It is also vitally concerned with providing appropriate support and resources in education, training and mentoring so that those disadvantaged young men may become citizens and fathers with a sense of responsibility themselves which both these states of life demand in a civilised society.
Of course, as has been said, in an ideal society the responsibility for the nurture into becoming a responsible adult would belong to the family—to the young man's parents and grandparents. But in our present society, where people now speak openly of the dysfunction of families and of single mothers who sometimes struggle to raise their teenage children—indeed, I suspect that we all struggle at times to raise teenage children—role models for male citizenship and for fatherhood may be lacking.
It is not for nothing that I believe a responsible government have been concerned to make citizenship and personal social education part of the national curriculum. I believe that this is an attempt to address real need. However, as I have said on previous occasions in your Lordships' House, we must not expect too much of what even the most gifted teachers can achieve in the nurture process. That is made particularly difficult these days in the personal relationships that are required between teachers and their students, or pupils, in order to develop the kind of models about which we are talking. In this age, when people go to litigation so easily for matters that would not have been dreamed about in a former time, this aspect of the teaching profession is made extremely difficult. I also wish that we could engage more in those extra-curricular activities, both sporting and cultural, that were such a feature of education and which did so much to fashion so many of us in an earlier generation.
Of course, as we have heard, the reasons for young males being disadvantaged are complex. In some areas it is the changing nature of employment where macho-type jobs in heavy industry, which, quite frankly, exhausted those who worked in them, have been replaced by work opportunities which in that
318
particular culture seem more appropriate to young women. Mining and shipbuilding come quickly to mind. However, we must not forget that this is now increasingly true in agriculture. It is not simply an urban problem; it is also a rural problem.
As has already been said, it is, above all, the changing roles and expectations between male and female brought about during the last century that: have led to young males feeling a lack of identity and of self-worth. It can sometimes appear to them that society is only—or mainly—concerned with women's rights and needs, proper as those campaigns and that development have been, in my opinion. But if you are a disadvantaged male, it appears rather different than if you are an advantaged person. We hear much of teenage mothers, but hardly anything about young fathers and their needs and responsibilities, or their part in parenting.
If we are to address the situation outlined in the noble Lord's Motion, we need, above all, to motivate those disadvantaged young men. We need to motivate them to see the point and purpose of their lives. I am aware that many adult men often find it difficult—indeed, have traditionally found it so—to accept the responsibility of parenthood. That is why, when the note comes from the head teacher requiring the parents to visit the school, it is more often than not the mother who attends. That has been a traditional part of our culture. We must not overplay how important fathers have been in that process. Nevertheless, the situation is much more difficult today.
It is relatively easy in this House to identify the problem, but I suggest that it is very much harder to motivate those young men about whom we are speaking to engage in certain activities. If noble Lords do not believe me, they have only to look at the average response to those activities in our young society that address life, growing up and relationships, be they activities in schools, colleges or in the youth organisations. It is very difficult to engage in clubbable activities that did so much in an earlier generation to achieve what we are looking for today. I suspect—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—that local authorities have allowed their resourcing to run down. They have got away with it because they have had one model and that model is no longer seen as being applicable to many of the people about whom we are speaking.
We must hope that the new Learning and Skills Council will not only be concerned with employment—important though that is in this context—but that it will also address these wider issues about life and living. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. This Motion challenges not only government and statutory bodies; it also challenges voluntary agencies, Churches, faith communities and charities. They must all try to address this need in an imaginative way with appropriate human and financial resources, which are not always easily available.
I am optimistic up to a point about the attempt that is being made. As I prepared for this debate, I was made aware of projects like the one recently set up by

319
the Children's Society in Brighton. I have also been made aware of the YMCA's "Dads and Lads" programme, and of some recent work undertaken by the Diocese of Truro in Cornwall. I believe that we need to monitor the results of this work and, above all, to share good practice where it is available. That may be one of the positive outcomes of this debate in your Lordships' House tonight.
However, perhaps the first task is to get behind the specific future roles of fathers and citizenship and to begin working with the young people simply as regards what it means to be a young man who will become a man. We must work through the issues and tackle apathy—the sense of worthlessness—where it exists, and which is so destructive to a vibrant, civilised society. But I believe that it depends on the age of the boys or the young men whether one should best try to do that through, as it were, an "own gender" approach, or whether it is better accomplished at times with young women being present who might motivate some young men to take an interest and participate in training programmes.
I must confess to having no clear answers about the subject that we are debating this evening. However, on behalf of the Churches, I should like to express the hope that we may be one group in the community that will help to address this issue. In Judaeo-Christian theology and tradition, it seems to me that both the notion of fatherhood and of human responsibility for the creation of a good society are extremely important.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, along with the other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for the opportunity that this debate gives us to address an ever-deepening problem. I am grateful, too, for the position paper that the noble Lord wrote during the run-up to Christmas.
There are apparently inherent disadvantages in being a human male. You are—to a statistically significant degree—more likely than females to suffer slings and arrows of varying severity from red-green colour blindness, like me, to autism, even to suicide. And you are 25 times more likely to get a prison sentence before you are 30.
This last fate is especially relevant to the condition specified in the terms of this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne:
"boys growing up without the care of a father".
For it turns out that boys—a further limiting characteristic of the male—seem much more dependent than are girls on a happy, two-parent environment. Without it, they are far more likely than girls to get involved in street gangs, in truancy, in exclusion from school and in other dark alleys that lead to Portland, Feltham, or even Pentonville.
There is a depressingly voluminous literature on the relation between home background and delinquency, but if I might draw attention to just one recent and conveniently brief item, it would be the Home Office Research Study, number 209, the Youth Lifestyles
320
Survey, published just a few months ago. For example, the table 3.1 measures the relation between various parameters of parental care and its relative absence on the one hand, and on the other the occurrence of serious offences at various ages. Without parental care, boys of 17 and below are twice as likely to get into trouble. Girls in this age band offend significantly less but the dependence on parental care is just as strong. Over 17, however, the position is strikingly different. Not only does female offending drop down far more sharply than male offending, but the dependence of the young women on parental care almost entirely disappears, whereas for the young men this dependency remains as strong as ever. In other words, the legacy of parental neglect continues to blight male lives throughout their twenties and beyond.
This difference between the sexes is brought out sharply in a histogram on page 33 of the Home Office survey. It shows that where a boy is brought up by a lone parent he is 40 per cent more likely to become a serious offender than a boy who is brought up with his two natural parents. Girls, however, have exactly the same rather low offender rate irrespective of this particular difference in family structure. As a parenthesis I might add that in stepfamilies the male offending rate is about the same as in one-parent families whereas for girls the offending rate in stepfamilies doubles from either of the other family structures.
Let me cite one other set of data from this Home Office survey. Table 3.2 relates offending to school performance and shows that if you detest school, or if you do worse at school than your peers, or if you leave school without qualifications, you are—in each case—two or three times more liable to become an offender, whether you are a boy or a girl. So the school experience is vitally important for girls and boys alike. But if you are a boy, the table goes on to show, you are a further two or three times more liable to commit offences—and these are especially violent offences.
In the musical version of Shaw's Pygmalion, the question arises, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" There are times when the converse question must surely have occurred to teachers, to social workers, to police and perhaps even to parents. Indeed, we are told that in the United States there is a movement to promote the idea of bringing up boys as though they were girls, with a view to making them gentler and less laddish.
But rather than attempts at social engineering to achieve psychological emasculation, we should be seeking ways to channel all that is valuable in a boy's masculinity into positive directions that will help him to take up his complementary and constructive role in a two sex society. And if this channelling cannot be conducted in a two parent home, the main responsibility falls on the educational services, on a civilising curriculum, on the wisdom of teachers and on the preparation of all children for a productive life. So, of course, if, through truancy or school exclusion, a youngster ends up in Feltham or some other Young Offender Institution, we must be far more insistent than we have so far been to ensure that the opportunity

321
is seized to supply, belatedly and within the institutions, some of the civilising and career envisaging and self-respect enhancing influence that education can exercise.
This is not the occasion to reiterate my complaints about the low quality and minute quantity of educational provision in YOIs and prisons—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has already referred to this issue—nor to repeat criticisms by Sir David Ramsbotham in numerous reports or by a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, or by the present Attorney-General himself, for example, on 15th December 1998 in this House, at col. 1229 of the Official Report. But the offenders and prisoners concerned are in disproportionately large measure a product of the conditions that are the subject of this debate.
6.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. On this occasion he has placed before us a number of crucial statistics on juvenile delinquency. I say in all humility that they fit in with my experience of such matters.
My main purpose is to give total support to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am afraid that I shall not add any practical suggestions to the many that have been put forward with so much wisdom today. However, I want to strengthen the case for the kind of approach of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I speak as an old-fashioned father. New-fashioned fathers, I gather, spend a lot of time changing nappies. I do not know how many noble Lords spend their time changing nappies. I would not know a nappy if I saw one—I do not know how many other noble Lords would. As I say, I am an old-fashioned father. I can only plead that I did at least spend 15 years visiting four sons at Ampleforth. If any noble Lords know where Ampleforth is, they will know that it is not next door to London.
I plead the case for fatherhood in general. I do not think that it is easy to establish a direct connection between the way that any father treats his son and the way the son turns out. I have recently lost my godson, Auberon Waugh, of whom I was very fond. A great deal of attention was paid to him in the press. He was described by a fellow journalist of distinction as the most brilliant journalist of his time. Auberon Waugh, according to what we read, was badly treated by his father who was my old, close friend whom I knew much better than I ever knew Bron. It seems that, in spite of the treatment he received from his father, he loved him. He spent his time writing about him and praising him. He waged a positive vendetta against anyone who seemed to be his father's enemy. So one cannot be sure how things will turn out.
Nevertheless, if I had to think of good men of my generation—of course, there are plenty that I did not know and plenty that I did know but cannot men tion—I think of three: Aidan Crawley, best known as a cricketer but famous for many other reasons, John
322
Redcliffe-Maud and Jack Donaldson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. All three of us are the children of clergymen, as distinguished in their way as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Of those, one was the son of a bishop. Talking of bishops, I think of the broadcaster, Jon Snow. I do not know what his religious views are at the moment. I have known him for many years; he is my youngest friend. He is the son of a bishop. Every time I listen to him interrogating his eminent victims I think that his father would have been proud of him. That kind of religious influence is a good influence.
On the other hand, we have the other extreme. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and others have said how terrible it is for young people not to have had such treatment. If one has visited prisons for as long as I have, one finds that in a high proportion of cases home life has been very unsatisfactory. I think in particular of two men. Both have committed terrible crimes. One is now in a secure hospital. I think of Ian Brady and Dennis Nilsen. I call them my friends; I am not sure what they would say about me. I have known them both for a long time. I have known Ian Brady for 30 years. They were both illegitimate. What effect did that have on them? No one can deny that it has a damaging effect.
When I appear before St Peter, he may well say, like Abraham said to Dives, "You've had a good time in your lifetime and he has had a terrible time", so perhaps there will be a levelling up. I do not make any forecasts.
I had a wonderful father. He was killed leading his brigade at Gallipoli when I was eight. He was a wonderful example. The brother of Sir Stafford Cripps told me afterwards that when my father was leading his brigade to certain death in Gallipoli—they were under a hail of Turkish bullets—he said to Cripps, "We should stop ducking, Fred. The men don't like it. We don't do any good". My father was killed soon afterwards. His was a wonderful example. The role model of a father which comes to an end when you are eight is somewhat different from the role model of a father who looks after you throughout childhood and adolescence.
I come back to a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He quoted my dear wife's niece, Harriet Harman: that what we need is a father, not the money. When I was at Eton a missionary used to come each year to give a sermon, appealing for money. He would say, "It's not your money I want, though God knows I need it; it is you, my dear fellows, you". That is the message from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, today.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Northbourne for introducing this debate today.
I should like to say something about the issue from a criminal justice perspective and in so doing should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police where I am a commander with

323
responsibility for the force's training. Most of my career, however, has been in operational roles—in Lambeth, Southwark, Peckham and Rotherhithe. I served for five years as the superintendent for Slough. Those communities manifested many of the symptoms of disadvantage to which my noble friend refers, with young boys having to negotiate a set of risks which were largely unknown to their parents, irrespective of social background or gender.
The average age at which offending begins for boys is 13½ and while there is little difference in the proportion of girls and boys offending at the age of 12 or 13, after that the difference becomes marked. The peak age of offending for girls is 14 while the proportion of male offenders starts to decline only after the age of 21. These findings from the 1998 Youth Lifestyles survey, to which my noble friend Lord Quirk referred, support those of a previous study in 1992 and show that girls "grow out of crime" at an earlier age than boys.
For boys aged 12 to 17 the factors most strongly associated with serious or persistent offending were the use of drugs, disaffection from school, persistent truancy or exclusion and weak family attachments. Many risk factors coincide or are interrelated. These findings validate earlier work for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which examined the background, circumstances and attitudes of offenders. That study identified social and economic deprivation as important predictors of anti-social behaviour. It showed that the risks of becoming criminally involved were higher for boys raised in disorganised inner city areas, characterised by physical deterioration and overcrowded households. Comparatively small proportions of the population—about 5 per cent of males—were found to be chronic offenders who accounted for about half of all known offending. Young boys who committed crime from an early age were especially likely to become persistent offenders with long criminal careers.
A lot is now known about what works in reducing such risk factors, including the importance of young boys having trusting relationships with adult role models. But it is, I believe, important to recognise individuality, to listen to young people, and not to perceive them as some homogeneous and problematic entity.
A study of young people moving into adulthood in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in north-east England illustrates the point. It discovered that, despite sharing very similar backgrounds and coming from the same place, young people's experiences during youth and early adulthood differed widely. The only exception in fact was in their criminal careers where typically these young boys—they were predominantly boys—had participated with their peers in street drinking, drug use and petty crime from an early age and had later progressed to more serious crime and drug use. The study found a strong relationship between boys becoming involved in
324
regular truancy, exclusion from school and the likelihood that they would become involved in delinquency and crime.
I know from my own experience how easy it is for a relatively small group of young men to create an estate culture in which crime and anti-social behaviour become tolerated as inevitable and low expectations become universal. Very soon a set of deviant norms develop and strong pressure is exerted on other boys to conform to them.
Reinforcing the support systems which exist in families and communities is, therefore, important and I understand that the new Connections programme, to which my noble friend Lord Northbourne, referred will seek out those most at risk of disadvantage. Reaching such young people, winning their confidence and developing long-term relationships with them will demand patience and skill, and we have reason to be grateful to all those involved in such work. That includes police officers who throughout the country are involved in strategies to support boys effectively through adolescence, identifying risks and developing ways of reducing these. This often means shifting resources into prevention and helping children and parents to deal with problems before they become acute.
In Thames Valley, for example, we work closely with schools and families using the principles of restorative justice, to which my noble friend Lord Listowel also referred, to address bullying, which was placing those involved at risk of exclusion. Such work is relevant to our debate today since 83 per cent of excluded pupils are boys and research has shown that those same boys generally experience considerable associated disadvantage with high levels of family stress, unemployment and low income.
Police officers are also supporting the work of young offending teams, working with others to help young people address offending behaviour. The recent evaluation from the national pilot schemes has demonstrated the benefits of such partnership approaches. Officers are also supporting the work of youth inclusion programmes on some of the most highly deprived estates in England and Wales, giving young people between 13 and 16, who may be at risk of offending, access to education, training, mentoring and addiction support.
They are also partners in the "on track" initiative being piloted in areas with high levels of crime or disadvantage. Here preventive schemes are being developed for children aged between four and 12 and their families. The scheme aims to identify children at risk of offending and to provide them and their families with consistent support throughout the period of the child's development. The initiative places a clear strategic focus on crime prevention.
Officers also support the summer holiday schemes targeted at young people at risk of becoming involved in crime, which have had some impact on reducing youth crime levels. The service also seeks to promote among young people greater awareness of their social and moral responsibilities. For example, the

325
Metropolitan Police volunteer cadet scheme promotes good citizenship by involving young people in community crime prevention initiatives and helping special constables at community events. The cadets have the chance to develop their personal qualities and skills. Last year they assisted the force with over 5,500 hours of duty. Such schemes have the potential to complement other national initiatives that promote citizenship in schools and to stimulate the interest of young people who may be considering a career in the police service.
Giving support to boys and young men in a situation of disadvantage is a desirable objective, as it will allow them to realise their potential and achieve all that they can in their lives. More than that, it may prevent offending now and in the future. There is substantial research to show that if family members engage in crime, children are likely to copy their behaviour. There is still much to be done. I am confident that the police service will continue to play its part in this important work.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, whose front-line experience is most relevant. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us a chance to focus again on the current plight of boys in our society, which I believe and hope is only a temporary situation. The noble Lord has been much complimented for his tenacious pursuit of the issue. May he keep going at it.
Today we have focused on boys without fathers—a particular sub-group of the young male population. I shall concentrate on four aspects of the debate so far. Several noble Lords referred to the poor use that is made of time spent in prison. As a former prison social worker, I entirely agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, told us about the extra difficulties that young black boys have when growing up. I normally spend my time wondering how young Scots are getting on. I realise that young Scots are doing very well in a comparatively easy task.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the "be like my dad" syndrome. That is a two-edged sword. The outcome can be admirable or disastrous. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out that boys are more dependent for success in life on a happy family background. That point had eluded me in the past.
There is no doubt that today's boys are growing up in a changing culture where the position of girls has rightly improved. That has led to the displacement of boys into a bit of a vacuum. That social and cultural readjustment is interesting to social scientists and perplexing for those trying to grow up at the moment.
So far, I have referred to all boys. The debate relates to boys without fathers. As a sub-culture, children without fathers must be presumed to have always been at a disadvantage. We should grasp the presumption that, in most cases, regular contact with both parents is beneficial. There is some pussyfooting around on the issue at the moment. I doubt that there is a substantive
326
case for promoting single parenthood as a first choice. We should reinforce the merit of boys and girls having regular contact with both their parents if that is practical.
But then I need to remind myself that I have been a step-parent for the past 26 years. Whereas I start by arguing that a boy needs to grow up with both his parents to understand his genetic make-up—an admittedly esoteric subject for any child—and to be able to respond to the role model offered by those two parents, I have to accept that there may be a fundamental complexity in the step-child/step-parent relationship. In a nutshell, it is a struggle between nature and nurture. Put another way, the child is being offered a role model by someone whose nature they do not share. That is the special task of the step-parent. I support the availability of any long-term, ongoing relationship between a child and an adult in the parental role.
A word about the role of the extended family is necessary. Literature and experience give us the impression that the extended family used to play a significant part in the upbringing of children. I suspect that the situation was not always rosy, but smaller families and greater mobility may well have taken their toll. Extended families are fewer in number and close relatives do not always live just round the corner.
The plain fact is that some men are cut out for fatherhood and others are not. It is perverse that some separated fathers have a better relationship with their children on alternate Saturdays than they would have had if they had remained at home.
Boys need to be given positive experiences that build on their propensity to single-mindedness. Some of those opportunities should be physical, to run off excess energy, and others should be of a social, cultural, environmental or recreational nature. Experience in social work with offenders reminds me that many minor offences have occurred when the young person has gone out of the house with no particular aim. The probation supervisor's classic advice is to stay in the house unless you are going somewhere definite.
It is not for society to prescribe how children should be brought up, but it is reasonable to identify the pitfalls and the possible remedies. That means that the mother of a boy disconnected from his father and any other long-term father figure needs to work hard to fulfil both female and male roles. That means encouraging men in the extended family to play a part and finding activity groups for the boys that include men in their leadership.
At this point we run into more of society's current problems, which have already been referred to: the non-availability, even in a new form, of what was once known generally as the youth service; and the new litigious nature of society, which brings the dreaded issue of liability. The non-availability of youth work resources needs to be reversed. It will cost money, but I argue the case on the grounds of collective responsibility. Where does it get us if boys grow up

327
believing that success is for others? Such desperation is rarely motivating. It usually leads to a feeling of exclusion and disaffection.
The Government and others—definitely others—must re-engage with youth work and so demonstrate social responsibility and community involvement.
7.19 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating the debate and bringing to it all the experience for which he has such a reputation in your Lordships' House. He has rightly drawn attention to the problems that we have inherited, including the decline in heavy engineering, mining and the Armed Forces, the decline of Victorian values and the increased career prospects for women. That inheritance is nobody's fault, but we must emphatically not be complacent. The debate has shown that there is no danger of that.
We are discussing the role of fathers, or, as in so many cases, the absence of fathers. In this day and age, it is possible to say that it has ever been thus. The role of the father is more difficult to define, if only because, by contrast, the role of the mother in physiological terms is so clear. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, drew attention to J M Barrie's remark that the Almighty in appearance bore a remarkable resemblance to the child's mother.
The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, gave some interesting figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Another statistic possibly puts this problem into perspective: despite all that is said on the subject, seven out of 10 families consist of dependent children living with their birth parents, and 70 per cent of non-resident fathers have contact with their children. However, in each case there is a significant minority with which, of course, this debate is concerned.
British men work the longest hours in Europe. That, in itself, must be a serious handicap to effective fatherhood. As many noble Lords have said, despite the hands-on reality of fathering for many men, the cultural stereotype of fathers as breadwinners and providers continues to exert a strong influence over men's, women's and children's attitudes to parenthood. Lest it be thought that bad fatherhood is peculiar to the lower end of the social spectrum, it may come as some surprise that a survey by the National Child Development Study showed that among parents with graduate qualifications only 35 per cent said that they took an equal share of childcare, while among men with few or no qualifications, the figure was 58 per cent.
But whatever section of society the boys come from—this has been referred to by several noble Lords—a feeling of inadequacy and loss of self-esteem follows if the fathers, for whatever reason, are not in a position to fulfil that role. That, in turn, leads to their failure to play a proper part in the care of the children.
328
This debate has two agendas: how to make better fathers and how to help boys who have no fathers at all. Perhaps I may quote from a finding of the National Fatherhood Initiative—an American organisation—which expresses the matter so well:
"We have simply changed our minds about the importance of fathers to the well-being of children and families. We have so truncated the role of fathers to where we now say a good father is someone who provides money … It's far more than just economic. In fact, the non-economic contributions are more important, things like being a good nurturer, a good disciplinarian, a teacher, a moral instructor. These are things we used to look to fathers to contribute to the well-being of their children".
It is all too easy to see the temptation for fatherless boys to seek their male outlet by becoming part of a gang, with all the potentially adverse consequences of drifting into crime to which that can lead. It would be impertinent for me to try to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, spoke about from his own personal experience.
What are the possibilities of, as it were, deflecting that and offering an acceptable father substitute? The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned the need for more male teachers. He, together with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Earl, referred to the need for good leaders in the youth service to help with youth clubs, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, the scout movement and the many other organisations mentioned.
Here, I must mention the ball and chain with which we in this country are shackling ourselves—that is, the politically correct culture. How many good young leaders are inhibited or, indeed, discouraged altogether from entering voluntary youth service, where quite innocent physical contact or perhaps simply a well-meant remark can lead to litigation being brought for alleged sexual abuse? That point was referred to obliquely by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. That problem must be faced, but it must not deter either government or the voluntary sector from endeavouring to fill in a constructive way the void left by the totally absent father.
In the United States the "Big Brother, Big Sister" initiative, where the aim is to introduce an older brother or sister as a role model, has had widespread success. Like many successful American initiatives of that kind, the idiom may not be entirely appropriate to the United Kingdom but the concept will well repay study.
The recent proposal put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the increased role of the voluntary sector will, I hope, embrace initiatives in connection with youth work. In particular, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether mentoring embraces such work. That, surely, presents the great opportunity to reach out in particular to the fatherless boys who are so in need of that old-fashioned word "leadership", or guidance, role model or whatever one chooses to call it.
I am quite sure that the problem of father/son relationships is not new to this generation. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the decline of Victorian values. But how many Victorian sons were

329
in terror of their father and probably passed on that terror to their own sons? It may have made for a stable marriage but some people would have been very unhappy.
At present, matters are certainly different. We live in an age in which greater resources are available and communication and the ability to discuss these issues is so much more developed. This debate has provided a good forum to discuss the subject. We must be very grateful to the noble Lord.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, together with other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I express particular gratitude for the way in which he introduced the debate and identified with great accuracy the nature of the problem. I believed that he had covered the issues so well that there would be little for others to add in the development of the debate. Of course, I was immediately proved wrong on that score, and I shall read with particular interest in Hansard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. He added depth to the nature of the problems which we all face and which, I must confess, I considered were in any case profound enough.
We all know that over the past few decades family structures have seen considerable changes: the divorce rate has risen substantially; fewer people are choosing to marry; and those who marry do so in later life. An increasing number of children are born to parents who are unmarried and more children than ever before are growing up in step-families and single-parent families. Of course, we need to recognise that those changes are the result of choices that people have made about the way that they want to live. It would be inappropriate for any government to try to tell people how they should live or how they should structure their families. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated, even if we tried we would be singularly unsuccessful and doomed to fail.
Therefore, the role of a responsible government is to provide all families with advice and support and to help them to give their children the best possible start in life. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Howells, who provided some breadth as to the nature of our society and the reasons why we need to develop an understanding of the needs of our fellow citizens in all their diversity.
Of course, the Government fully recognise the important role that most fathers play in raising their children. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for identifying the percentage of our fellow citizens who fulfil their role in terms of parenthood. The debate has illustrated clearly how important it is that we get right this area of work. The Government are working hard to support fathers in carrying out their responsibilities. This debate assists in identifying fruitful paths which we can follow in that respect.
330
The Government recognise that the role of fathers needs to be given greater prominence. In the past, the importance of the father's role in shaping the lives of children has been underestimated. We know it has been clearly demonstrated by the contributions to this debate—that strong links exist between the role of fathers in the family and the life outcomes of boys and young men.
A number of obstacles prevents many fathers from playing a full role in the lives of their children. Those obstacles have been identified in this debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, reminded us that British men—and women too—work some of the longest hours in Europe. One in five men works more than 50 hours per week, and most of the men who are employed to that extent are fathers with dependent children. Many fathers feel that they should be able to provide and care for their family without having to seek help. They feel that a man's role is to be strong and they regard it as a failure to have to ask for help.
Many services have therefore been targeted at women or, by being gender neutral, have attracted only women. We must ensure that services aimed at parents do not implicitly or actively exclude fathers or affect the role that men need to play and their contribution. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for discussing the need for men to get more involved in such services. We also need to recognise the cultural change that is required in relation to the way in which parenthood is fulfilled by men. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his contribution and for raising that point. We have the extensive job of educating men in then role as fathers in contemporary society.
What are the Government doing? We want to change the culture involving parenting support. We want parents, especially fathers, who can find this particularly difficult, to regard asking for help and support as a positive step in the role that they play caring for their children. That step is taken by a responsible parent for the good of the family, and it is not regarded as a sign of weakness or an admission of failure. One or two noble Lords discussed that. We have all felt a sense of failure, if not on occasion desperation, at some stage in our lives as parents. Even the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn discussed that moment of doubt that we have all felt as parents.
The Government alone cannot change that culture, but we are making a start through key initiatives such as Sure Start, the Children's Fund and the family support grants. Those initiatives are already making a difference to the quality and availability of support for all parents, including fathers. Sure Start is targeted particularly at fathers in disadvantaged sections of our community.
It is also important to understand that if we want to help young fathers to take an active interest in and responsibility for their children, we must first help them to raise their self-esteem. The significance of government initiatives such as the New Deal is clear in

331
that context. One of the best ways for the unemployed to do that is to obtain work and to acquire a significant bread-winning role in the family.
Since 1997, the Government's New Deal has been a considerable success. More than 81,000 employers have signed employer agreements. Between 1997 and the spring of 2000, the number of children living in families claiming out-of-work benefits fell by 300,000. By the end of September last year, the Government had met their manifesto pledge to move 250,000 young people off benefit and into work through the New Deal for young people.
My right honourable friend in another place announced only today another initiative involving status and opportunity which is particularly relevant to young males. He emphasised the need to tackle drop-out rates from school. That problem was also identified by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, and he related it to the problem of criminal activity. The truanting of young people may occur because they are not sufficiently engaged at school; that may be why they fall into bad ways. My right honourable friend in another place today emphasised the need to broaden the curriculum and to provide opportunities through vocational educational schemes. That will help those students who previously felt that the provision of education for the under-16s was too limited and that they were failing. They will see a closer relationship between the studies they engage in and the opportunity to earn their living directly.
The Government are determined that young people who want a career that is based on vocational and technical skills should be able to choose predominantly vocational programmes of study from the age of 14, and that that will include progression to an apprenticeship at the age of 16. That will, I am sure, begin to tackle a matter to which the Government have paid a great deal of attention; namely, the need to reduce the number of young people who are excluded from school or who exclude themselves through truancy.
The development of the concept of citizenship in the curriculum is an important dimension. That change was referred to by several noble Lords, two of whom, the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Phillips, have played a distinguished role in that context. We cannot over-emphasise the contribution that such a change will make, although it will be a marginal part of the curriculum. Nevertheless, it will provide a framework in which young people should be able to understand in more detail their role, their rights and their responsibilities in the development of our society. I hope that that work, which is being carried out with good intentions in schools, will extend into further education for those over 16.
The Government are concerned about providing financial support for families. The issue of poverty has underwritten many of the problems that have been identified in this debate. The tax and benefits system needs to support all children and to recognise the extra costs and responsibilities that parents face and the importance of our children to our future. When all the
332
measures that will be introduced during this Parliament have come into effect, the tax burden on a family with a single earner on average earnings with two children will be the lowest since 1972.
The Government are also committed to working with employers to enable fathers to find a better balance between their work and their family life. That relates to the long hours that many fathers work. The Government are providing £2.5 million over two years for the new work-life balance challenge fund, which will provide free advice to employers to develop work-life balance policies. We are getting a good response to that initiative.
The Government have also established the Family Support Grant to develop and promote family support. About £7 million will be given over three years to organisations that provide support for families. Each year, a portion of the grant is awarded to themed applications. That relates to the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who said that it was important to have effective targeting in the distribution of such resources. I assure him that that is the Government's intention. The theme for the 1999–2000 period was boys, young men and fathers, which is directly relevant to this debate. During that period we awarded 14 voluntary organisations with funding totalling £432,000 to develop and trial a variety of approaches to working with fathers. The noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Northbourne, have close associations with several of those organisations.
Fathers Direct is working to change the culture surrounding fatherhood, emphasising fathers' caring, involved role as a parent. The Government are funding that scheme, which will provide information to fathers, highlight fathers' issues in public life and bring together organisations in that field to exchange experiences and to influence policy developments.
Parentline Plus is a freephone telephone helpline offering support and information to anyone in a parenting role. It receives government funding of £1 million over three years. It is developing a communication campaign to target specific groups of parents, including fathers and parents on low incomes. Parentline Plus is working with Fathers Direct to break down the barriers that fathers feel prevent them using the helpline and is tackling that cultural problem to which so many noble Lords have referred, which was also an important part of the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
The National Family and Parenting Institute is an independent charity which receives guaranteed strategic government funding of £2 million over three years. It provides advice to government and others on issues relating to family policy, parenting and adult relationships and the needs of children. It analyses and disseminates research findings, raises public awareness of the importance of parenting and the needs of children and promotes parenting issues in the media.
Of course, several noble Lords raised the very important issue of mentoring. My noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Earls, Lord Listowel and

333
Lord Rosslyn, all referred to the question of mentoring and role models. So often in the media role models seem to be portrayed by significant figures whose fame is often transient and they have strikingly little relevance to the real needs of the people who are meant to identify them as role models. Only a certain number of people from even the most talented in society can aspire to be strikers for Manchester United.
We need to be more concerned, of course, about what has been reflected in this debate; namely, role models relating much more directly to the needs of young people in terms of fatherhood. We are establishing pilot schemes at the present time. There is one in Kensington and Chelsea, another in Birmingham and another in Salford. They will test different models of co-ordinating, recruiting and supporting mentors which are rather more directly related to the needs of young people. That will help to establish minimum quality standards and spread good practice in mentoring. That is a process which many will welcome in this House.
I wish to emphasise also that local authority support for youth services is a very important dimension. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was perhaps rather disparaging about certain aspects of that work. I assure him that we recognise, of course, that the Youth Service varies across the country. There is a need for bringing up standards in some authorities. It is because of that that the Government and the Secretary of State have asked Ofsted to inspect for the first time local authority youth services and national voluntary youth organisations so that we can improve standards in that respect.
In recognition of the valuable role played by the national voluntary youth organisations, we have provided them with £12 million of funding. Many local youth organisations also receive funding from their local authority.
I turn to a particular dimension with regard to the development of services for young people. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, was perhaps more positive than others about the role of the Connexions Service. I should like to associate myself with his positive and optimistic remarks. The new Connexions Service will provide advice, guidance and support to all 13 to 19 year-olds who need help. The Connexions Service intends to provide a personal adviser for every 13 to 19 year-old in order to broker access for specialist support where that is needed.
The amount to be spent on the Connexions Service one year from now will be double the amount spent on the present Career Service. So that is an earnest of the Government's very real intention to tackle the issue of how people see the relevance between the development of their educational work at quite a young age and the opportunities which they will seek as they move into more mature adulthood.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will my noble friend emphasise the role of the churches in trying to raise the moral standards of the country?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course I am happy to associate the Government with that
334
suggestion in so far as it is quite clear that we shall need every possible contribution from those who, in a voluntary and professional capacity, have the ability to raise the standards of morality in the country as a whole. I take it that my noble friend will agree with me that where there is need, there is the necessity for a social, community or national response to that need. But that cannot be provided only by government and, in fact, in my opening remarks I referred to the limitations of government in that regard. It requires the wider community as a whole to respond to the needs which we have identified.
It is clear that there is a great deal of work to do in this area and the debate has identified how much we need to advance. Strengthening the roles and responsibilities of fathers cannot be achieved by the Government alone and nor can it be achieved overnight. However, it is clear that the Government have made a significant start in addressing those issues and will continue to ensure that supporting fathers and, indeed, all families remains a key priority of Her Majesty's Government.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate—so much experience, so much knowledge, so much wisdom. I was particularly pleased to hear what the Minister said about the funding of the Connexions Service because, for some time, that was in the air.
We are all agreed that the cultural legacy of the father as provider is a thing of the past and will have to be a thing of the past for many families. The difficulty is that we have not really identified what role replaces it. My noble friend Lord Laming referred to the changing of nappies. In that particular context, he gave me one encouraging thought; namely, that while technological advance may now make it much more difficult for men to be the provider for the family, it makes it a lot easier to change nappies!
This is a difficult time for young people to grow up in. Your Lordships have all made extremely important and useful contributions to the debate. I hope that many people will read it. I thank most warmly all noble Lords who took part in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Coroners
7.48 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will modernise the working practices of H M Coroner Service to meet the needs of a multi-faith Britain.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for allocating time for this debate and the Minister for taking time to participate in it. I also thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker and noble Lords opposite for giving their precious time to be here. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of

335
Bradford had indicated that he would take part in the debate but due to a prior commitment, he is unable to be here this evening.
Her Majesty's Coroner Service dates back to 1194 when a council held by Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, led to the promulgation of the Articles of Eyre. Article 20 provided that in every county there should be elected three knights and one clerk (a clergyman) as keepers of the pleas of the Crown. Those powerful landed men were below the ranks of Lords spiritual and temporal. They were the first coroners. They were elected by the freeholders of the county. Soon the need for the coroners to be knights or clergymen was abandoned. However, the requirement of elections by freeholders continued until the Local Government Act of 1888, which substituted such elections for elections by county councils.
The office of Coroner was an honorary one so there was no pay. In 1487 a statute was enacted by Henry VII that provided that a coroner should receive a fee of 13 shillings and 4 pence for any inquest held upon the view of the slain body. In 1751 another statute, enacted by George II, raised the fee to 20 shillings per inquest, together with travelling expenses of 9 pence per mile. Those fees were to be paid out of the county rates and were to be in addition to, not in substitution of, 13 shillings and 4 pence required by the statute of Henry VII.
In 1860 the County Coroners Act provided for salaries for county coroners and coroners sitting in boroughs or liberties and franchise coroners who were paid on a differing basis. Most of the substantive law relating to coroners was in the common law until the Coroners Act 1887 which consolidated much of the legislation relating to coroners. The common law is still of some importance, not least in relation to coroners' powers as to contempt.
Since the early 19th century most coroners were lawyers or doctors, but the Coroners Act 1926 required that coroners be either barristers, solicitors or legally qualified medical practitioners; that is, doctors on the medical register. The principal legislation in relation to coroners is the Coroners Act 1988, which consolidated (with amendments) the Acts of 1887 and 1926 and which has itself since been amended.
Section 8(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 provides that if the deceased:
"(a) has died a violent or unnatural death;
(b) has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown; or
(c) has died in prison or in such a place or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act",
then, whether the cause of death arose within his district or not, the coroner shall as soon as practicable hold an inquest into the death of the deceased either with or, subject to subsection (3) … without a jury".
In that context "violent" means death by any application of force; death in a road traffic accident or even death by falling down stairs is deemed "violent" for the purposes of the Act.
The 1926 statute provided that if it seemed to the coroner that the post mortem examination may show the sudden death was natural (so that an inquest may
336
be unnecessary) he could request or order a post mortem. That provision is now set out in Section 19 of the 1988 Act and is used in over half of the cases of sudden deaths reported to coroners and obviates the need for inquests. Over a third of deaths reported to coroners are dealt with via the pink form "A" where the coroner, after making investigations and inquiries of the deceased's medical attendant, is able to say that there is no need for an inquest without there being a post mortem examination.
In 1997 Her Majesty's Coroner Service reported 201,191 deaths, of which 105,168 were dealt with by post mortem examinations (Section 19); 72,073 were dealt with by the pink form "A"; and 24,050 out of 200,000 deaths required an inquest.
The greatest concern among the Muslim and Jewish communities in particular is the possible delay in holding a post mortem examination, as the burial should take place as soon as possible. Regrettably, post mortem examinations cannot be avoided in a great number of cases—about 66 per cent in 1997. Perhaps post mortem examinations could be undertaken by a pathologist nominated by the local community outside normal hours. Of course, that service would need to be paid for by local communities.
There is also a disparity in the service provided by the Coroner Service in different regions of the country. The service provided by my local coroner, Mr Stanley Hooper, in South Yorkshire, is of an excellent standard, as is the service in Leicestershire. In recent months the service has improved in Bradford. However, in other parts of the United Kingdom the service is unacceptable, including in Birmingham, some parts of London and elsewhere.
Coroners Rules provide that no inquest be held on a Sunday, Christmas day, Good Friday or a bank holiday, unless they consider that one should be held on such a day. They also provide that a coroner, his deputy or his assistant deputy, shall at all times be ready to undertake any duties in connection with inquests and post mortem examinations. The phrase "at all times" excludes Sundays, Christmas day, Good Friday and bank holidays. Coroners are required to make themselves available at all times in connection with post mortem examinations and it is not unusual to be called at any hour, particularly when serious crime is suspected.
As I said earlier, Muslim and Jewish religious requirements are that burials should take place as soon as possible. I propose that, in order to make some coroners in England and Wales more amenable to dealing with applications to remove a body outside normal hours, a fee of £50 to £100 be paid. I suggest that Her Majesty's Coroner Service could delegate to deputies or assistant deputies out of normal hours. The police coroner officers could also be involved, as they are on call for 24 hours a day. Payment of fees as per the Act of 1487 induced coroners to perform their duties with regard to inquests more diligently.
The Muslim and Jewish communities are fully aware that a body cannot be released immediately in cases where there is some suspicion about the cause of

337
death. That is completely understandable. However, where the cause of death has been established and a doctor's certificate has been issued, the coroner or his officer should be available to release the body.
Delays in funeral arrangements cause enormous problems for the families and for the communities. Relatives from other towns gather together at the deceased's house which can cause traffic problems and tension with neighbours. There can also be a detrimental effect upon health as so many people are stuck together in the same place until a funeral takes place. Also families overseas can experience the burden of waiting for the release of bodies as many are taken for burial abroad and some medical visitors may die in the United Kingdom while undergoing treatment.
At present, there are over 312 coroners; 26 coroners are full time and the rest work part time. Most part-time coroners are solicitors who are or who were in private practice and some are medical practitioners.
The composition of Her Majesty's Coroner Service should reflect the multi-ethnic and multi-faith nature of modern Britain and it should reflect its sensitivity to the religious requirements and practices vis-à-vis the different faiths and cultures in the United Kingdom. That should be the case especially in those regions where there is a high concentration of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or other communities.
The service should also encourage more people from ethnic minority backgrounds to enter its ranks, which would bring great benefits in that those individuals could advise with regard to and draw attention to the needs of a diverse Britain.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister what percentage of those working within HM Coroner Service are from ethnic minority backgrounds and also what percentage of those people are from the Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities. Furthermore, what type of training is given to coroners in relation to the religious needs of communities?
I remember one coroner saying in a meeting that when one is in England one should live by English laws. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that we should change those laws or rules which do not reflect the needs of our communities. Britain is now a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and diverse society and our services to the citizens should reflect the needs of the people.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for initiating the debate and I support him, not least because so few others seem to have taken an interest in a pretty clear example of how our avowedly multi-cultural society does not take into account the needs of different faith communities.
I want to make a brief contribution. I am not expert in the relative practices of different faiths. Indeed, as many of your Lordships may be, I was unaware of these issues until I had the honour to chair a session of a conference on religious discrimination organised by the Council of Europe's Commission on Racism and
338
Intolerance and the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. There I heard several examples of distress caused by the insensitive handling of the requirements of different faiths on the death of a family member. All could have been alleviated by simple, practical and inexpensive steps.
There is not only the question of more rapid post-mortems, where these are necessary, as they are in the majority of cases, as my noble friend says, and the strange fact that few, if any, coroners are from minority backgrounds, even in areas where they predominate.
There is also the important underlying question of the ordinary services of the state being performed in such a way as to make separate groups of our fellow citizens feel excluded. In particular, members of our Muslim communities are already likely to be marginalised, much more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have below average health, in some cases less appropriate healthcare, and very much more likely to experience racial and religious harassment. Should they also be made to feel excluded from the custom and practice of the services which may accompany the sad circumstance of a violent death in the family?
Some kinds of exclusion in employment or racial harassment are complex and difficult to put right and may take time, and in any case are not wholly within the power of the state. But arrangements for coroners' work are wholly within the power of the state. It is a state system. I hope that the Government can assure us that it is their intention to adapt the Coroner Service and to modernise it.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, in my working career I have on a number of occasions attended inquests and post-mortems and I have been involved in discussions with a number of coroners on many occasions. I am therefore delighted to have the opportunity to debate the working practices of HM Coroner Service. The matters relating to our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious communities have been adequately expressed and I fully endorse what has been said.
Religions and religious beliefs are at the centre of the lives of our ethnic minority communities. Any variation from that process causes a great deal of distress. It is important that there are some problems which are within our scope to put right; others may require further thought.
Before contributing to the debate, perhaps I may clarify an anomaly. When debating the Coroner Service we should remember that the same service does not apply to Scotland. A different situation exists in Scotland; there are no coroners there. Whenever an unusual death occurs the matter is referred to the procurator fiscal. After investigation, the need for a fatal accident and sudden death inquiry is decided. The inquiry is held in the local sheriff court before the sheriff.

339
Will the Minister draw the debate to the attention of his counterpart in the Scotland Office? Our diverse communities are also settled in many parts of Scotland and it is right that they are not isolated from the good practices that we recommend here.
It has taken me some time to discover when your Lordships' House previously debated the Coroner Service. It may surprise your Lordships to learn that I was advised by the Library that it was during the passage of the Coroners Bill 1988. Obviously, I cannot hold the Minister responsible because neither he nor I were then Members of this place. However, I suspect that since the establishment of the coroners' courts in 1194 there have been very few attempts to examine the relevance of their functions today. I confirmed that the coroners courts date back to 1194. My source was not the Library; it was the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I am also told that it may be that the courts date back even before then.
Some fundamental appraisals of training needs in the criminal justice system have been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. We find that great strides have been made in training and building sensitivity of people working in that system. Looking at the police service, the probation service, prosecutors and the Prison Service one notes that the building of race sensitivity has been an important part of their training curriculum.
I am delighted that even judges and the noble and learned Lords the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor have participated in such training. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister is no exception. It brings great credit to those professions and helps to build the confidence of minorities in the services which are provided.
My point in raising this matter is that I have not been made aware of what training coroners receive about our diverse communities. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me with that information. It would also be helpful to have an ethnic breakdown of the service. Ethnic minorities are the major provider of services in the field of medicine. Much of our National Health Service depends on them. Many have excelled in this field. Do we encourage them to apply to be coroners? If not, why not? How many coroners are from ethnic minority communities?
I want to move away from faith and diversity issues and concentrate on the main function of coroners; that is, inquests. The proceedings and evidence given at an inquest are directed solely to ascertaining who the deceased was; how he died; when he died; and when or where he died. The historic role of inquests to ascertain who should be charged with murder, manslaughter or infanticide has been taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service. In summing up when all the evidence has been heard, a coroner will instruct the jury along the lines that an inquest is a fact-finding investigation to discover how a person died; it is not a matter of apportioning blame. Those words are often used in the coroners' courts.
340
I raise this matter because, according to records in the Library, as early as November 1971 the Brodrick report, entitled Death Certification and Coroners, was published. That report recommended reforms which to this day have not been implemented. For the Minister's assistance, those included recommendation 54 in paragraph 16.34 that,
"the term 'verdict' should be abandoned and replaced by 'findings??.
Recommendation 57 was that the,
"right to attach a rider to the findings of a coroners court should be abolished. The coroner should confine his inquiry to ascertaining and recording the facts both medical and circumstantial which caused or led up to the death and where he thinks action should be considered to prevent recurrence of the fatality. He should have a right to refer the matter to the appropriate expert or public authority, and he should announce that he is doing so".
The form to be used by coroners recommended by Brodrick clearly states that it should avoid the issue of blame. When can we expect progress on the implementation of those recommendations? Surely, 30 years is a very long time to wait for action.
I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority from 1994 to 1997. The PCA each year produces information about two or three deaths in police custody, or deaths involving police officers, which result in verdicts at inquests of unlawful killing but no prosecution by the CPS and possibly no disciplinary action recommended by the Police Complaints Authority. There may be innocent explanations for such cases. The inquest may conclude that CS spray, a baton strike or police officer's restraint contributed to the death. The inquest jury may conclude that the deceased had therefore been unlawfully killed. The use of CS spray or a baton might, however, have represented "reasonable force in all the circumstances" within Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act and no officer would then be charged.
It might not be possible to ascertain which officer had inflicted the injury, and no officer would then be charged. An officer might have been following the training that he had been given. There are very important lessons to be learnt from the case for the training of officers, but again no officers will be charged. The actions of officers may not have been unreasonable under case law which is unknown to the coroner or jury but well known to the CPS. Again, no officer will be charged. It is also possible that the CPS may decide not to charge officers when others may conclude from the evidence that the case should be placed before a court. I back that up by referring to the case of Richard O'Brien, which was investigated by the PCA. Mr O'Brien was arrested for being drunk and disorderly outside the English Martyrs Hall in London SE17. He was taken in a police van to Walworth police station where he was found not to be breathing. He was pronounced dead in hospital. The cause of death was positional asphyxia following a struggle. The inquiry included copies of extracts from the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology dealing with positional asphyxia during law enforcement.

341
In January 1995 the CPS decided not to bring criminal charges. In November 1995 the inquest decided that Mr O'Brien had been unlawfully killed. In October 1996 there was a second decision by the CPA not to prosecute. In February 1997 the Police Complaints Authority decided that two officers should face charges of neglect of duty. In July 1997 the High Court quashed the decision not to bring criminal charges. In February 1998 three police officers were charged with manslaughter. In July 1999 the officers were found not guilty.
Two other examples have been highlighted in the reports published by the Police Complaints Authority. Without going into details, I ask the Minister to study the case of Brian Douglas who was detained in Kennington police station and later escorted to St Thomas' Hospital, where he died. There is also the case of Wayne Douglas, who died in HM Prison Brixton in December 1995. I cite those cases because of the apparent contradictory conclusions of an inquest jury and the CPS which bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. That contradiction also causes great distress to bereaved relatives who hear the jury say that a member of their family has been unlawfully killed and yet nothing is done and the officers continue to serve in the police service.
I should like to place on record a number of initiative taken by the Police Complaints Authority in dealing with cases of death in custody. I urge the Minister to study the good practices outlined by the PCA. Will he ensure that those practices are implemented in all coroners' courts? In particular, I draw to the attention of the Minister the PCA's last annual report on openness which states:
"We have argued for several years that bereaved families should not have to wait until the inquest before they receive any information about how a member of their family died. We warmly welcome guidance issued by the Home Office and hope that all parties will comply fully with it".
It is worth spelling out that guidance: that all material which is supplied to HM Coroner Service should normally be made available to those whom the coroner considers to be interested parties; that disclosure should not include material which would result in genuine risk of prejudice to any subsequent proceedings, which could cause concern or distress to the family or which would disclose personal information about third parties; and that disclosure should normally be at least 28 days before the inquest proceedings.
The Inquest Lawyers Group has also done some valuable work. In an article about inquests and deaths in custody published in January 1998 it states:
"Families are in an appalling position of disadvantage compared with the institutions or corporate bodies involved in the case. In the absence of legal aid for representation, families can be confronted at the inquest by teams of lawyers, paid from unlimited public funds, or professional associations, many of whom will have intimate knowledge of all the available evidence. The inequality of access to legal representation and information is unacceptable and severely inhibits the fairness and proper function of the process.
"If bereaved families attend the inquest without legal representation, it is very rare for coroners to conduct the same searching questions of witnesses that occurs when families are
342
represented. Coroners organise the presentation of evidence, decide which witnesses to call and the scope of questioning to be conducted by the legal representatives. They alone sum up the evidence, address the jury and decide the acceptable verdicts that the jury can consider. Jurors are no longer allowed to add riders to their verdict and are, effectively, prevented from making comments about the evidence that they have heard".
The following matters cry out for reform of the inquest system: access to quality legal preparation; advance disclosure of information and witness statements; the right to call witnesses; the right to argue a case as well as to ask questions; and the restoration of the right of the jury to make recommendations to avert future deaths. Simple changes are required to ensure that bereaved families are informed of their rights and given information and access to proper advice and support.
We are dealing with an archaic system which cries out for reform. There is a need to make a fundamental review of the role and function of coroners and the services that their courts provide. We need a high level inquiry into the inquest system, possibly undertaken by a judge or other person of integrity and objectivity. That inquiry is not to criticise those who deal with this difficult work but to draw up proposals to take into account difficulties that coroners face and how good practices can assist them. We have waited for over 30 years since the Brodrick report, and now is the time to make the service more relevant to the present day.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for raising this matter this evening. Over the centuries this country has followed the custom of accepting and absorbing the cultures of those communities which have come to settle here, and I suggest that this multi-faith and multi-cultural society is the richer for it. There is an interesting contrast with France, where Muslim girls are not permitted to attend school wearing the veil: French culture is imposed.
I do not know the result of the fight by the Sikh community over motor cyclists wearing hard hats, but it certainly provided a lively debate in this country.
There are many people who are unaware that dietary customs, particularly, originated from communities which came from hot countries before the days of refrigeration. Notwithstanding that we have refrigeration, the customs have passed into the culture of the people in this country. The requirement to bury a body, if possible, within 48 hours—a particular requirement of the Muslim and Jewish faiths—derives from the same issue of hygiene.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has a reasonable point. It is significant that he does not require the coroner to short-circuit any of the forensic requirements of his work. He simply requires the removal of bodies for transportation overseas. He referred to the custom under Muslim law of families being required to remain in their houses, both in this country and the destination country, until the body is received.

343
I cannot think of a more unnecessary way to create civic unrest. It causes problems in communities. The noble Lord referred to the problems of parking and the question of hygiene. This creates unnecessary tension.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, requested that the Minister consider under any reform of coroners' practices, which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, outlined with such professional detail, that there should be common practice among all coroners; that the practice in some communities where the role is delegated to the police should be made more universal; and that there should be a requirement, particularly in the case of removal of bodies overseas, that there should be the minimum of delay.
Those are simple requests. We also support the encouragement of members of ethnic communities to enter the Coroner Service. In that way the career will become more popular and the best men will be recruited. Those are simple suggestions to the Minister. I shall be very interested to hear his reply.
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for putting the Question before your Lordships' House this evening. He and others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have made a very compelling case for the modernisation of practices of Her Majesty's Coroner Service.
It is beholden on government to ensure that services like the Coroner Service are as inclusive, as it were, for those who are deceased as we are attempting to make all other public services for those of us who are living. We must ensure throughout our consideration of these matters that we do everything we possibly can to reflect the multi-faith and multicultural nature of our country. That should inform our thinking as we look to the Coroner Service.
I shall spend some time looking at the history of the service. Two noble Lords have done that expertly. These matters bear some reflection. As has been said, coroners have been a feature of legal processes of this country for more than 800 years. Their duties have evolved considerably over that time. To the credit of the Coroner Service, they have moved with the time. Only since the nineteenth century have coroners consistently performed their current duties: the investigation of violent and unnatural deaths, deaths of unknown cause, and treasure trove.
Coroners have a long history of adapting to the needs of the state and to the needs of society. History shows that criticisms of inflexibility or resistance to change cannot be sustained. They have a difficult job. They must investigate the facts surrounding a death reported to them, but they are expressly required not to determine any question of criminal responsibility on the part of a named person or civil liability. We need to remember that.
344
Their duty is to investigate deaths, fully, fairly and fearlessly, not on behalf of relatives but on behalf of society at large. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reflected that issue very well in his comments. Nor do all the members of the family involved with a death have the same interest as the legitimate interests expressed by close relatives. Coroners must pick their way through a maze of conflicting interests and disputed facts, acting fairly and openly and seeking to arrive at the objective truth of the cause and circumstances of the death.
That is for four main reasons: first, to reassure the public that any untoward or uncertain death will be investigated impartially by an independent judicial officer; secondly, to enable any rumour or suspicion surrounding the death to be fully dispelled; thirdly, to maintain and enhance the integrity of our mortality data in the interests of public health; and, fourthly, to underpin arrangements to detect and deter crime. That last point is very important. Coroners may also report cases so that others can take action to prevent deaths in similar circumstances. I am sure we can all recall cases like that.
The Coroner Service is a service which is held in tripartite responsibility between the Home Office for law and practice, the Lord Chancellor's Department for rules and discipline and the local authority for pay, rations, appointments and facilities. The cost to local authorities is about £50 million each year. We receive very good value for that investment. There are just over 140 coroners in England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, there is a very different system for Scotland. I undertake to ensure that our Scottish colleagues have their attention drawn to the issues of concern raised during the debate.
Each of those coroners has a deputy and an assistant to stand in for him when required. Interestingly, only about 25 coroners are full-time appointments. The others work either as doctors or solicitors in private practice. About one-third of all deaths are reported to coroners-200,000—but only 24,000 cases result in an inquest; 125,000 post-mortem examinations are ordered. Most of these enable the cause of death to be confirmed and the death registered without the need for an inquest. The inquest verdict summarises the circumstances in which the deceased died. Nearly half, some 9,600, are accidents; and sadly one has to reflect that nearly one in five, 3,700 annually, are suicides. Most inquests are completed within six months and just under half are completed within three months or less. So the performance of the Coroner Service can be described as very satisfactory.
It is crucial that coroners should act, and be seen to act, independently of government. But the Government have a legitimate interest in how coroners discharge their duties. That matter goes to the heart of our discussions and the debate this evening. Coroners should be efficient, expeditious and courteous. Unlike many other services, coroners have to deal with the public at a time when they have suffered personal distress and are feeling most vulnerable. The bereaved must be treated with the utmost care and consideration. Many will be sustained by their

345
religious beliefs and will attach considerable importance to the observance of their religious customs and practices. This debate has reinforced the importance of that point.
We believe that more can be done to assist the bereaved of all religious beliefs, or of none. It is important that the practices and priorities of minority religious communities, such as the Jews, Muslims and Sikhs and many others are properly understood and respected. It is also important for the leaders and members of those communities to understand the legal constraints under which coroners perform their duties, and the wider social needs that they are seeking to serve. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for his acknowledgement of that point.
Although it has a long tradition, the Coroner Service is not immune to modernisation. There have been a number of modernisation measures, though perhaps not as many as some of us would like. We have encouraged coroners to provide, in advance of formal inquest hearings, more information about deaths and the circumstances in which they occur. This helps families to understand what is happening and to get more out of the inquest process. We have revised our standard information leaflet about the inquest system to make it clearer and more understandable for the bereaved. There is one deficiency in this respect, which we shall obviously need to address, namely, that there is a need to ensure that information about the Coroner Service is posted in a range of ethnic minority languages. That is a matter to which we shall have to give careful consideration.
We have introduced a model coroners' court charter. Coroners and their local authorities have been asked to develop their own charters, setting out local information and making clear what sort of advice can be expected. In particular, information should be given about how long it will take for an inquest to be held. New procedures have been introduced aimed at reducing delays in releasing the body in cases where the deceased has been murdered. We recognise the importance of that. So far, the results have been encouraging.
I now want to reflect on some of the main concerns for the religious minorities. It seems to us that the religious minorities of this country are aware of the particular problems that they face, including invasive post-mortem examinations and delays to funerals in this country or abroad.
No one can be comfortable about post-mortem examinations. The prospect of the violation of the body of a relative or friend is distasteful and distressing to all of us. Such examinations present a particular dilemma for those whose religious beliefs and teachings are opposed to them. Coroners are not required to hold post-mortem examinations. However, if they decide that they are necessary, the consent of the family is not required. We believe that that is right. Otherwise, the coroner could be prevented from achieving his primary purpose, which is to determine the cause of death.
346
Can medical science provide an alternative to the traditional invasive post-mortem examination? A possible alternative is magnetic resonance imaging. We have listened carefully to proponents of this technique. We have recently asked the Chief Medical Officer to consider whether more work can he undertaken on this technique. The best medical advice at the moment is that MRI does not offer an adequate substitute for traditional procedures. Therefore, we cannot recommend that at present this technique should be adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, made a number of proposals on which I wish to reflect very carefully. One was to take account of the issue of delay to extend out-of-hours services. I was interested in his suggestion with regard to nominated pathologists appointed by the local community. That is a matter to which we can give careful consideration but about which I can make no promises. The noble Lord also made the point, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about the need to have a service which reflects the multi-faith, multi-ethnic basis of our society. Quite understandably, the question was asked, "How many of our coroners come from ethnic minority backgrounds?" Information on this question is not robust. I can tell your Lordships that, to our knowledge, of the 25 full-time coroners, there are two who come from an ethnic minority background. We shall need to give further consideration to monitoring. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, raised the important point, which was supported by others, about training and encouragement in this important area of policy. We shall take further account of that point, which this debate has very usefully and valuably highlighted.
I briefly address the reasons for delay. They need to be understood. Delays arise because of the need to investigate the cause of death. Each case will vary. Only 12 per cent (24,000) of deaths referred to coroners in 1999 needed to be the subject of an inquest. In 40 per cent of cases, coroners were able to release the body without a post-mortem examination. In nearly all cases, the body can be released for the funeral within a week, if no inquest is needed. In almost 90 per cent of cases, release can be authorised in a week, even if an inquest must be held at a later date. Even a delay of a few days can present real difficulties for some religious communities. It is, of course, a matter for individual coroners to decide whether they can give priority to deaths in particular sections of the community. We have to recognise that priority for one bereaved family can mean a delay for others.
What more can be done in this regard? Why are coroners not available at weekends and Bank Holidays? Coroners and their deputies are already required, under the Coroners Rules, to be available at all times for duties in connection with inquests and post-mortem examinations. Coroners are always ready to respond to urgent cases arising outside normal office hours. A regular out-of-hours service would increase the cost of the Coroner Service. It would also require an out-of-hours service to be provided by all those on whom coroners depend—pathologists, doctors of deceased persons, appropriate

347
laboratory facilities, the police and perhaps other experts. The costs and practicality of making provision for these other services would fall to the local authority. We have to ask whether this would be a proper use of public funds. That is an important question. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, mentioned improvements to certain coroner services, particularly in Leicester, Bradford and elsewhere. It is clear that changes to practice are being made. We should give further consideration to those changes, so that we can establish the best practice.
If a body is to be taken abroad (in accordance with the custom and practice of some communities) the permission of the coroner is required. That is necessary, of course, whatever the cause of death. If an early funeral is required, the pressures on the Coroner Service can become acute. Coroners are sympathetic and will do what they can to help, but any volume demands for this service would be beyond the responsibility of individual coroners. We must not forget that the purpose of the checks is to ensure that evidence of suspicious deaths is not put beyond the reach of the police and the prosecution services.
The appalling and dreadful case of Harold Shipman has demonstrated that existing procedures are not infallible. We have carried out a review of death certification arrangements. Changes must make procedures more effective, without those procedures becoming intolerable, especially for the minority religious communities. We have received valuable views from a wide range of professional and lay sources, including representatives of the Muslim, Jewish and other communities. Following our review, we hope to reach conclusions in the next few weeks. In that process, the concerns of the minority religious communities will certainly be given proper and due weight. If significant change is required, it may be that this review will best address many of the problems to which noble Lords have averred this evening.
Coroners' practices and procedures are being modernised, but we are not complacent and we shall continue to keep them under review. We have a close working relationship with the Coroners' Society of England and Wales. That society is aware of ethnic minority concerns and issues, which are regularly drawn to its attention by our officials. I must place on record the fact that much has been achieved with its assistance and support. Coroners are fully seized and aware of the importance of the family in the
348
investigation of deaths and appreciate the special sensitivities for certain sections of the community. We shall certainly draw their attention to the important points raised in this debate.
In conclusion, more work is required to achieve the right balance between the wider needs of society and the rights of individuals. We are anxious to ensure that all bereaved persons are treated considerately and with respect. We have very carefully listened, and shall continue to do so, to suggestions for easing the distress of families at a time of great difficulty for them and for their communities.
This has been an extremely valuable debate. I am fully seized of the need for further modernisation of the service. Although, strictly speaking, it does not fall within my range of ministerial responsibilities, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the Brodrick report, which was published 30 years ago, being in need of further appraisal was a telling one. I shall reflect further on that and on all the other important matters raised during what has been an enlightening debate on what is sometimes viewed as a quiet backwater of the practices of government and state services.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will consider a practical suggestion. This issue particularly affects minority communities. As there are matters which need to be reviewed and considered and as there is now doubt that the co-operation of the minorities is available to the Home Office—they co-operated, for example, on the issue of forced marriages—I ask whether the Home Office could not instigate the type of conference at which minority communities, Crown prosecutors, coroners, the Police Complaints Authority and organisations such as Inquest could come together to produce some practical ideas which the Home Office could take forward as a basis for improving the service. I am not asking for an answer today. I am asking the Minister to reflect on that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I give a commitment to reflect on it. It is an important point to which I shall give very careful consideration; and I shall share the fruits of my consideration not only with the noble Lord but with all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Motor Vehicle Exports to EU
  Motor Vehicle Exports to EU
  Crime Reduction Targets
  Crime Reduction Targets
  Shotgun Certificates: Requirement to Show Good Reason
  Shotgun Certificates: Requirement to Show Good Reason
  Bicycle Riders: Fixed Penalty Notices
  Bicycle Riders: Fixed Penalty Notices
  Firearms Legislation: Dealer's Registration Fee
  Firearms Legislation: Dealer's Registration Fee
  Tank Transporter Procurement
  Tank Transporter Procurement
  Motor Industry: Collective Redundancy Notices
  Motor Industry: Collective Redundancy Notices
  Depleted Uranium Exposure: Screening Programme
  Depleted Uranium Exposure: Screening Programme
  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Neo-natal Hearing Screening