Sitting of 31 January 2001

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

    Corus(Llanwern)
    Mr. Damian Green: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the future of the Corus steelworks plant at Llanwern. [146520]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): During the past weeks, I have of course discussed the future of Llanwern with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and that of the steel industry generally with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, I have twice met Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corus.
    I have to tell the House that the Government have not been given any detail about the forthcoming restructuring of the British steel industry, much of which is, of course, based in Wales. The company has not engaged with the Government or with the National Assembly. I regret that and urge Corns to recognise the record of our steelworks and our steelworkers and not to take any short-term decision which would have devastating effects on our communities.
    Mr. Green: The Secretary of State paints a very disturbing picture. Will he acknowledge that some of the problems—only some, I agree—that have led to this terrible crisis are the result of explicit Government policies, which have led to business rates being too high; the climate change levy, which particularly affects steelworks; and the web of bureaucracy and interference that they have tied around manufacturing industry? There are clearly faults on many sides in this terrible crisis. Will he accept responsibility for the fact that the Government have caused some of the problems that are presenting such a terrible prospect for the steel industry in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I certainly do not accept that. I doubt whether many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will lose their jobs in the next few days; many hundreds,
    290
    if not thousands, of my constituents certainly will. I strongly reject the points that he has made. Let me tell him that I have met the chairman of Corns, and none of the points to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in respect of which we have made some representations and changes—for example, rates in Wales—would make any difference whatever to the decisions that Corns proposes to take in the next couple of days. That is what the chairman of Corns said. He said that he intends to base his decision on the restructuring of the steel industry, not on whether the company is paying too much in rates in Cardiff, Llanwern or wherever. That is not the case.
    In fact, Corns has been unmoved by any offer of help whatever. The company is intent on making its decisions entirely on its own. I repeat that our steelworkers are the best in Europe; they produce the highest output per employee and our Welsh plants are the most efficient and productive in the world. In 1998–99 alone, they increased their productivity from 533 to 571 tonnes per person, which is well above that of any other country in the whole of Europe.
    The devastating effects of what might happen in the restructuring will fall on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and, as I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, but right across Wales—north and south—the effects of the decision will be calamitous. It is a decision entirely made by the company, based on what I fear are short-term considerations.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does Brian Moffat's contemptible refusal even to consider the offer from a consortium to take over Llanwern prove the reasons behind his plans? The decision is nothing to do with the marvellous productivity at Llanwern, which is at least 20 per cent. better than the Dutch arm of the business; it is entirely about the fact that he said, "We don't want more competition." The "we" that he was referring to is Corm after the assets have been stripped from Llanwern and the hard-won contracts that have been earned there are handed over to the Dutch arm of the industry. If the decision is taken, it will be enormously damaging to a bedrock industry that has served Newport, Wales and the United Kingdom for many years. That will be an act of industrial vandalism. Can we not impose some common sense on the company and make it realise that it has a responsibility to Newport, to Wales and to the work force of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He worked for many years in the Llanwern steelworks, so he is perfectly aware of that plant's efficient record. I wrote to Sir Brian Moffat to tell him that the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation bid had been made and that Corus should take the bid seriously. The company has rejected the bid, but I hope that it does not reject the vote of confidence in the Llanwern steelworks that the bid undoubtedly represented. It was a vote of confidence in the workers, in the management and in the efficiency of the plant. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Conservatives are hardly in a position to criticise, given that they presided over the

    291
    largest loss of steel jobs in the history of Wales? Some 35,000 to 40,000 jobs were lost under their leadership. Furthermore, does he agree that it is not the time for any one party in Westminster or Cardiff to attempt to score cheap political points when the Welsh economy stands to lose thousands of jobs? Does he agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that the Welsh Assembly has as loud a voice as possible to influence the decisions of that company?
    Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It certainly is not the time to start making party political points about the future of the steel industry, particularly when Corns has said that whatever any Government could do will have no effect on the decision that the company is likely to take. All of us in Wales—whatever party we represent—must fear that 5,000 or 6,000 direct jobs could be put at risk. In addition to those, literally thousands of indirect jobs in all sorts of industries and services will be affected. It will be devastating news for Wales if what is predicted comes about. Once again, I appeal to Corns, if it has such decisions in mind, to rethink them.
    Mr. Llew Smith: The Secretary of State may be aware that, on the day that Corns was formed, I received a call from its managing director, Tony Vickers, to tell me that there was no threat to jobs in Ebbw Vale and that the plant was secure. If we are to believe the serious press, that plant faces closure. We are told that redundancies will take place in Corns because of financial problems. If this is so, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, since it was set up, Corns has handed out £700 million to its shareholders, appropriated £900 million from the workers' pension fund, wasted £135 million by buying companies abroad and given millions of pounds to sacked chief executives and massive wage increases to former Dutch managers? Is he surprised at what is happening to the industry and the steelworkers, given that Sir Brian Moffat has said that he was interested not in making steel but only in making money?
    Mr. Speaker: May I appeal for very brief questions?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He knows that I worked in Ebbw Vale from 1971 until I came to the House. When I first started working in that town, more than 10,000 people worked in the steel industry. Today, there are fewer than 1,000 working in the industry, and the loss of those jobs to the people of Blaenau Gwent would be catastrophic. I know that, and I also know that the production and efficiency of the works at Ebbw Vale are second to none. With my hon. Friend, I hope and wish that any decision that is taken in the next couple of days will not close down that very efficient plant.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I join the Secretary of State in deploring the shameful way in which Corns has refused to listen to its work force and refused to listen to representations from all political parties in Wales. However, although the axe is being wielded by Corns, the death sentence was passed by his Government and their attitude to manufacturing. There has been a lack of clarity on the future of the euro and a refusal to put forward regional fiscal policies, and the Government need to send
    292
    out messages on those issues. Does he accept that the decision is a wake-up call to his Government to get manufacturing right in Wales and in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Murphy: Let me repeat what I have said already to the House. On all the occasions that I and the First Secretary have met Sir Brian, no blame has been attached to any Government or any Government policies for the steel industry. The hon. Gentleman knows that the relationship between the euro and the pound has improved and that Corns has benefited to the tune of many tens of millions of pounds in the past few weeks. However, it has already said publicly and privately that that issue is not the reason for the restructuring that now faces us. There are all sorts of factors, but the principal one is that the company wants to slim down its manufacturing base in the United Kingdom. We are asking Corns to think again, realise its commitments to our communities and ensure that its policy is based on long-term consideration of the economy and on its own prospects. Its decisions should not be based on short-termism, as they are currently.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Shotton steelworkers thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for what they have done to help them. However, has the First Secretary told Sir Brian Moffat in any of their meetings about the deep anxieties of the Shotton work force, who fear both closure and the loss of their cold strip mill, where 300 jobs are at stake? The Shotton work force are one of the most magnificent of their kind in western Europe. We could not suffer any more job losses after experiencing Europe's biggest redundancy in 1980—a redundancy that was, incidentally, implemented by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Murphy: First, I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that my right hon. Friend has done on behalf of his steelworkers and the communities in Shotton and in Alyn and Deeside generally. I was with him not so very long ago at the steelworks. I have no doubt that the First Secretary has stressed in his meetings with Corus and others the importance of recognising that the Welsh Assembly and the Government are intent on trying to ensure that all the United Kingdom's steelworks, including those in north Wales, are saved from destruction.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I, too, call on Sir Brian Moffat to think again about the enormous impact that the job losses would have not only in Llanwern, but throughout the whole of Wales. Indeed, devastating rippling effects would be felt not only throughout Wales, but in every part of the United Kingdom. Sir Brian Moffat would tear the guts out of steel in Wales if he closed Llanwern. I applaud any action taken by the Secretary of State and other Ministers in negotiating with Corns to ensure that the jobs remain safe in Wales.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Brian Moffat's comment that business rates had no effect on the company's decision. I understand, however, that Corns made representations to the National Assembly for Wales many months ago about the enormous impact of the business rates. Has the right hon. Gentleman made

    293
    representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister suggesting that the climate change levy be scrapped?
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to ensuring that we work together on the matter and ask Corns to rethink what it has in mind. He referred to negotiations, but no negotiations have occurred between Corns and the Government or the National Assembly for Wales. Our meetings have dealt only with general policy and there have been no discussions on the detail of whatever announcements await us. On the other issues that he mentioned, I told the House earlier about our suggestion to Corns that we could negotiate on matters such as business rates. Those matters were not taken into account, however, and are not relevant to the decision making of Corns. I wish that they were.
    Mr. Evans: It is obvious that Corus cannot escape blame for the way in which it is handling its decision. For those who are waiting for proposals at Llanwern and other steelworks throughout Wales, the company's indecision must be torture. I implore Sir Brian Moffat to sit at the table and negotiate in the long-term interests of the Welsh steel industry and those who have the skills to work in it, to ensure a viable future. Will the Secretary of State implore the Prime Minister himself to become directly involved with the steel crisis? Will he tell the House exactly what direct action the Prime Minister has taken so far to try to save the jobs? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the House must settle down. There is far too much noise.
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, of course, already met Sir Brian Moffat, only a week ago. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the First Secretary and I have also met Sir Brian. We will continue to meet, but there is no point in having meetings unless the company is prepared to talk about reality. In the meetings that have so far been held, I fear that there have been no concrete negotiations whatever.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, I implore Corns to ensure that when it next meets my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or myself, it discusses details and restructuring proposals. Perhaps then it will realise that what it has in mind will have devastating effects on my constituents and those of many other hon. Members.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Following the unusually long delay in making the announcement, and given the great importance to Wales of the steel industry, will my right hon. Friend request that a delegation of Members be present at the board meeting where the decisions are made, so that we can put the arguments for keeping the steel industry in Wales going?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall certainly make that point to Corns and to others engaged in the process. However, if Corus's record of engagement so far is anything to go by, it is unlikely to accede to that or any other request. It is disgraceful that a major public company such as this simply is not willing to listen to the leading elected Members representing the people of the country.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Graham Brady: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on unemployment in Wales. [146522]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Minister, and I hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, when we discuss a wide range of issues including unemployment levels in Wales.
    The Government's continued firm handling of their sound economic policy has seen a significant reduction in the number of people claiming benefits in Wales, with a fall in the claimant count from 4.7 per cent. in December 1999 to 4.3 per cent. in December 2000.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his reply, although it was somewhat selective. He knows, as I do, that unemployment in Wales is rising, and with manufacturing in Wales now under threat, there is a danger that it may rise further. Will he and the Secretary of State, who appear to be the only people in the country who do not recognise that the climate change levy will hurt the British steel industry, make urgent representations to the Government to try to ensure that that damaging tax is scrapped?
    Mr. Hanson: I hate to disparage the hon. Gentleman's facts, but since the general election youth unemployment in Wales has fallen by three quarters and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. I will take no lessons on tax from the hon. Gentleman. The Government are committed to tackling unemployment. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that unemployment in Altrincham and Sale, West has fallen by 52 per cent. since the general election.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: During the devolution debate, the nationalists and the Liberals said that people overseas were queueing up to invest in Wales as soon as the Welsh Assembly was established. That has been shown to be patent nonsense. Who is responsible for an employment and industrial strategy in Wales? Is it his office, the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency, training and enterprise councils or local government?
    Mr. Hanson: There is a partnership agreement between the National Assembly—which is responsible for the Welsh Development Agency—my right hon. Friend, myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and that is achieving results. As I said, there has been a 60 per cent. fall in long-term unemployment and a fall of three quarters in youth unemployment. Online finance enterprise has created 400 jobs in south Wales, and Wireless Systems has created 250 jobs in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That demonstrates that our policies are working.
    Mr. David Prior: In the Government's discussions with Corus, did they ask its chairman, in the event that Llanwern closes, how much of Llanwern's

    295
    capacity could be made at Port Talbot and how much would be transferred to Corus's plant at Ijmuiden in Holland?
    Mr. Hanson: We have met Corus, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there has been little discussion with the company about the details of its package, about which it has kept quiet. We deplore the fact that it has not given information to the Government. There are still opportunities for Corus to discuss proposals with the Government, and we would welcome that.
    Mr. Martin Caton: The good news that my hon. Friend has given the House about employment in Wales is obviously right, but I know that he will appreciate that it is of little comfort to the workers at Valeo Climate Control in my constituency, who learned that the French-owned company intends to close that plant by July. The work force are gutted; they have done everything and more in recent years to improve productivity. They are now recognised by Valeo as a centre of excellence in terms of productivity, quality and flexibility. Will my hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet a delegation of hon. Members who represent workers at Valeo and representatives of the work force at Valeo to discuss saving those jobs?
    Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) to discuss the situation at Valeo. I am saddened by the announcement that 337 jobs will be lost. I believe that production will be maintained until the end of July, and I am hopeful that the Welsh Development Agency will be able to pursue with the company the possibility of a new buyer for the site in the near future. I give my hon. Friend the commitment that we will meet him.
    Mr. Robert Walter: We have rightly spent more than 20 minutes speaking about Llanwern, but another major public company, Dairy Crest, today announced the loss of 800 jobs, including 270 at Marshfield in Cardiff and 270 at Carmarthen. Last Friday, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) pointed out, the closure of Valeo's plant at Gorseinon was announced, with the loss of about 330 jobs. On Monday last week, Dewhirst announced that 300 jobs were likely to go at Fishguard, after announcing 175 job losses at Lampeter.
    The falling trend of unemployment that the Government inherited is rapidly disappearing. Every day we hear of job losses in Wales. What are the Minister and the Secretary of State saying to the Lib-Lab coalition in Cardiff, which seems to include the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), judging by his earlier question? What are Ministers saying to the Lib-Lab coalition about the way in which it is presiding over what was a good news story about jobs in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: Obviously, I regret the decision announced today about the Carmarthen and Marshfield plants, but it will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that the same company announced on the same day that there is to be an expansion at Wrexham, with a further 175 jobs
    296
    I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to creating employment. Unemployment is falling in Wales. We have the right economic conditions. There will always be ups and downs in the employment market, and we regret that. We will work with companies and with my hon. Friends in the Administration in Cardiff to create employment. What will damage employment prospects in Wales are severe cuts in public spending from the Conservatives, the madness of their economic policies and the continuation of what they did for 18 years.

    Health and Education
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with Secretaries in the Welsh Assembly about health and education spending in Wales. [146523]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Health and Education Secretaries to discuss health and education issues in Wales. Spending in both of those areas is often part of our agenda.
    Mr. Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received representations from head teachers in my constituency, members of staff and governors, who believe that they have been unfairly treated in the payment, particularly the direct payment, of moneys to schools in Wales? They look across the border and see large sums being spent directly in schools in England, and they believe that they have been unfairly treated. Will my hon. Friend raise these matters with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning when he next meets her?
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The £1.35 billion extra for health and the £551 million for education that the Government have given the National Assembly are significant. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the expenditure and distribution of those funds, and I will discuss the matter with the Minister in the Assembly shortly, when I next meet her.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the decision of the Scottish Executive last week about the funding of social care for the elderly, what discussions has the Minister held with the Welsh Assembly and Ministers in Wales about the unfairness to elderly people in Wales, let alone those in England?
    Mr. Hanson: Those matters will form part of our on-going discussions with the National Assembly about the implications of the Scottish decision. The £551 million for education and £1.35 billion for health that the Government have allocated would not be available if the hon. Gentleman's party came to power. Let us not talk about semantics. His party is committed to cutting that resource. Our party is committed to investing that money. Whatever else happens with the health service, under this Government there is more money in Wales for the health service there.
    Mr. Chris Ruane: What measures can my hon. Friend take to ensure that education in Wales serves industry so that we have people with the right skills to take advantage of the jobs that will come to Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: I know that my hon. Friend battles hard for his constituency and for employment. Local authorities will use the more than £500 million extra for education in Wales to build up skills. I reiterate the important point that the money would not be available if the official Opposition were in government. They would cut those resources for Wales.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [146550] Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Ladyman: Yesterday, we had to confront the pain of the parents whose children were involved in the organ-stripping scandal at Alder Hey hospital. Does that not put in perspective some of the trivia in which we politicians sometimes get bogged down? After the malpractice at Bristol royal infirmary, the horrors of Harold Shipman and the scandalous events about which we heard yesterday, should we not focus on the need to drive through reform and rebuild public confidence in clinical practice in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. All hon. Members will have been appalled by the findings of the report published yesterday, and I condemn, without reservation, the practices at Alder Hey, which have added to the grief and pain of parents and relatives who had suffered enough through losing their children. Unfortunately, the chief medical officer's census of organ retention shows that Alder Hey was not alone in that practice. It is therefore essential that we introduce measures to amend the Human Tissue Act 1961 to clarify the basis on which consent is given, ensure that organs and tissue are specified, and make it a criminal offence to ignore the response of relatives.
    As we focus on those appalling events and take action to ensure that they are not repeated, we should also pay tribute to the work that the vast majority of doctors, surgeons and nurses undertake day in, day out in our health service. We should not allow appalling circumstances to disguise the fact that, in the main, they provide a fantastic service to the people of this country.
    Mr. William Hague: I concur with the Prime Minister's condemnation of the practices at
    298
    Alder Hey and look forward to the introduction of new measures. I also congratulate and pay tribute to the great majority of health service staff.
    Let us consider another pledge that the Prime Minister made in recent years. He promised that the new asylum laws that came into force last year would
    "deter the bogus asylum seeker."[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 386.]
    Does he accept that, once again, he has failed miserably to deliver?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not. Decisions are now outstripping applications for the first time. Last year, 110,000 decisions were made. The latest asylum figures, which have just been published, show a sharp reduction in applications. It is correct that large numbers of asylum applications have been made here, as they have elsewhere in Europe. However, the Conservative party opposes the important measures that we have introduced to deal with that. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the matter, but he always refuses to tackle it.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister says that there has been a reduction in the number of applications. However, the figures that were published last Thursday constitute an all-time record of nearly 100,000. It is a good job that he does not give such answers to his press secretary; he would get the sack these days.
    On the Government's figures, unfounded asylum applications are running at 78 per cent. of a hugely increased number. The Government said that they would disperse 65,000 people, but they dispersed only a fraction of that number. The voucher system has failed and a panic review is under way. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the latest United Nations figures show that more asylum seekers came to Britain than any other European country last year?
    The Prime Minister: What I said was that the last month's figures showed a sharp fall, which they do. However, it is not the case that Britain is the only country suffering an increase in the numbers of asylum seekers. Between January and October last year, Ireland had a 65 per cent. increase, France a 30 per cent. increase, Sweden a 28 per cent. increase, Belgium a 20 per cent. increase and the Netherlands a 15 per cent. increase.
    The question is what measures are necessary to reduce those figures. We have introduced two measures. One is to take away cash benefits for asylum seekers; the other is to make sure that those who bring asylum seekers in, in the backs of lorries and by other means, are subject to criminal penalty. The two measures that we have introduced are important in reducing the number of asylum seekers. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his policy to get rid of both those measures?
    Mr. Hague: It is our policy to take a much tougher approach, and the Prime Minister knows it. Normally, he seeks to amend his answers by going to Hansard afterwards. He does not normally amend them in his very next answer, claiming that he had said that it was only in the last month that the number of applications had fallen, but omitting to say that the number of applications in the last quarter was higher than in the same quarter of the

    299
    previous year, and omitting to say that in the last quarter, the figure was higher than in any quarter of last year, and that the number of applications is, therefore, rising.
    The reason for that increase is that the Government have been unfailingly weak. They have promised new laws, but the only result is that the crisis has deepened. By allowing Britain to become a soft touch for those who wish to abuse the system, and by making life much more difficult for genuine refugees by failing to deal with the problem, has not the Prime Minister once again been all spin and no delivery?
    The Prime Minister: First, let us deal with the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that we are a soft touch for asylum seekers. We have taken two measures to ensure that our rules are tougher. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted tough action. These are the two measures: we withdraw cash benefits and we make sure that there are penalties for people bringing people into the country illegally. A third measure that we have introduced is to increase dramatically the number of people dealing with claims, which is why the backlog has dropped from more than 100,000 to a little more than 60,000, and why the number of decisions being made is now higher than the number of fresh applications coming in. Those are the three measures. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a serious policy debate about how we ensure that people do not abuse the system, will he say which of those measures he supports and which he does not?
    Ms Joan Ryan: My constituents are well aware of the investment that the Government have made in the national health service, because our hospital, Chase Farm hospital, was under threat of closure for 10 years under the previous Government. It is now secure and has a newly refurbished accident and emergency department. However, it has many old buildings that need replacing. Everyone except members of the shadow Cabinet thinks that those are important issues, and we fear that if the matter were left to them, we should never see a new building. For the peace of mind of my constituents and many others, will the Prime Minister re-state the commitment of this Government and any future Labour Government to continuing to invest in the fabric of our hospitals
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will. We will continue the record investment going into the health service, which is ensuring that accident and emergency departments up and down the country are being refurbished and that more nurses are coming into the health service.
    The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made an interesting speech yesterday. I do not doubt that hon. Members know that he has been saying that he now wants to match our commitments on public spending. He wants to match our commitments on health, education and so on. This is what he said yesterday:
    "At the next election Labour will be proposing large increases in public spending."
    That is dead right. There will be spending on nurses, doctors, teachers and police. He goes on—[Interruption.]
    300
    I know that Opposition Members do not want to listen to this, but they are going to have to. The right hon. Gentleman goes on:
    "We have argued repeatedly that these increases are unsustainable."
    If they are unsustainable, how is he going to match them?
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Moving on from asylum and immigration and this afternoon's latest dose of pebbledash populism from those on the Tory Front Bench, will the Prime Minister turn his attention to long-term care for the elderly? In Scotland, long-term care in the home will be provided free. Why is he prepared to go on justifying charging people for that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The devolved Parliament and the devolved Executive are perfectly entitled to decide to provide that free care. We believe that the money would be better spent elsewhere in the national health service. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman only that we cannot spend the same money twice.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister must acknowledge, however, that the Sutherland report, which led to that policy initiative, was UK-wide. If it is good enough for one part of the UK, why is it not good enough for the rest?
    The Prime Minister: That is a difficult argument to use in respect of devolution as people are perfectly entitled to use their money and overall resources in different ways. We have decided that it is best to have free nursing care, which will mean improvements for many thousands of people in our country. The question is simply one of resources. In the end, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman many times, we have to decide how best to spend the money. We believe that it would be better spent on other things in the NHS, particularly as about seven out of 10 of those who receive personal care already receive assistance from the state. For that reason, we believe that the additional money—it would cost about £1 billion to achieve free care in Britain as a whole—would be better spent elsewhere in the NHS. Again, the devolved Executive are entitled to create such a difference. That is the consequence of devolution.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to look into the proposal that I put to him recently about growing surpluses in the miners' pension fund and the amount that has gone to the Government since the Tory privatisation of the industry in the mid-1990s? Will he have a look at the matter with a view to ensuring that, in agreement with the trustees of the miners' pension fund, a lump sum should be paid to every single retired miner and widow? That would put clear blue water between us and the Tories. When they were in power, they shut every pit in Derbyshire and many other coalfields, and they would not pay the miners a penny piece.
    The Prime Minister: Under the mineworkers' pension scheme, the income of its members has risen by about 30 per cent., but there are provisions that protect the Government, who have a contingent liability of, I think,

    301
    £20 billion under the scheme. I will certainly look carefully into what my hon. Friend has said, but I am afraid that I can give him no guarantees.

    St. Ives
    Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): When he next intends to visit the St. Ives constituency.
    The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to come to Cornwall, but I regret that I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. George: That is a pity, because we would love to celebrate jointly the memory of succeeding in achieving objective 1 status for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Is the Prime Minister aware that, a year after the start date, not a penny piece of objective 1 money has gone to any capital projects and that local people are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress, red tape, the complexity, the meddlesome quangos and unnecessary Government intervention? Will he please intervene on our behalf, cut through the nonsense, and give us the money and the power to get on with delivering the sustainable economic development that Cornwall so justly deserves?
    The Prime Minister: It says here that objective 1 programmes have got off to a good start, which seems rather inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I understand it, the first wave of projects has already been approved and announced, and will total some £7 million. In the end, it is obviously for local partnerships to make programmes work because of the procedures that have to be gone through. Money is coming from the Government and the European Union and it is, of course, important that it should be sensibly spent. The Government are making every effort to encourage local partnerships, but it is up to them to set the pace on the ground.
    Ms Candy Atherton: I too would welcome my right hon. Friend to St. Ives and west Cornwall.
    It was, of course, the Labour Government who delivered objective 1 status for Cornwall, and it is the Labour Government who are ensuring that it will succeed. I cannot think of two things that the Liberal Democrats have done for Cornwall; can my right hon. Friend?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being infinitely more on-message than I was a moment ago. Of course, she is absolutely right. We are delighted that we have secured objective 1 status not just for Cornwall but for other parts of the country. That was part of a settlement made in Berlin, which meant that the British rebate was protected and will also mean that, for the first time since we joined the European Union, our contributions over the coming years will be more like those of France, Italy and similar countries. We protected the British national interest, but we also secured a very good deal for Cornwall.

    Engagements
    Mr. John Hayes: Two weeks ago, in answer to a question from
    302
    my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister made a promise to the House. He pledged that he would introduce legislation in this Session—those are the words he used: "this Session"—to make adoption easier. Can he tell us which aspects of his White Paper on adoption require primary legislation, and when the House can expect to see it?
    The Prime Minister: The short answer is that I cannot say offhand exactly which aspects require primary legislation and which do not require legislation. I can say, however, that we can push ahead with those that do not require legislation. In respect of those that do, I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to present proposals shortly. I very much hope that those proposals will have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend has strongly supported medical research, arguing that patients should not be denied its benefits. Is he aware, however, that of the 25 million people in Africa with HIV and AIDS, only one in a thousand can gain access to the life-prolonging drugs created by that research, because they are simply too expensive? Does he agree that the pharmaceutical companies have a moral obligation to make such drugs available to the people of Africa at a price that they can afford?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that the Chancellor is looking at ways of actively encouraging the process, and ensuring that vaccines are available to people in Africa at a reasonable cost. It is absolutely terrifying to think that 95 per cent. of those with HIV live in developing countries, and that 70 per cent. are now in sub-Saharan Africa.
    We are contributing to the effort to fund the process of finding a vaccine. We have invested some £14 million in the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and are also putting money into the treatment of other diseases in Africa such as malaria and tuberculosis. Moreover, as my hon. Friend will know, under this Government, the amount of aid and development money has been considerably increased. I should like us to take a range of initiatives, not just nationally but internationally through the G8 and the European Union, so that the scandal of HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa can be regarded as a matter that the whole international community should combat.
    Mr. Hague: Was the Prime Minister's press secretary speaking for the Prime Minister last Friday when he gave his extraordinary briefing against the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, he always speaks for me. I should add, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should not believe all the representations that he has read in the press.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister must be losing his grip on reality as well as losing his grip on his Cabinet. Given that he praised the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the House last Wednesday but then sent out his press secretary on Friday to rubbish the right hon. Gentleman are we to understand that he did not have the

    303
    courage to express his views in the House, or are we to understand that the terms used about the former Minister, who was described as "detached", "lacking focus" and being in the same mental state as the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), were meant to be complimentary?
    The Prime Minister: He did not say that last bit at all, and he also paid tribute to the former Northern Ireland Secretary.
    Mr. Hague: So it was all meant to be complimentary. No doubt when the press secretary described the Chancellor as having psychological flaws, that was also meant to be complimentary, and constituted a great tribute.
    The Prime Minister looks hurt because we have dared to raise the issue that has consumed his Government for the past week—which has involved the sacking, at the instigation of his press secretary, of a Cabinet Minister who has since been rubbished by half the Cabinet. The Government have spent the last week in civil war. The Prime Minister has been rubbishing the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, while the rest of the Cabinet dine out on crocodile tears and champagne.
    Is this not the real verdict on this Government, without an inquiry? A Government of spin and dishonesty—guilty. A culture of cronyism and favours—guilty. A Prime Minister who promised a new type of politics and has once again failed to deliver—guilty.
    The Prime Minister: Shall I tell the House what the Conservative party is really angry about? Last week, my official spokesman compared Conservative economic policy to that of Mickey Mouse. I want to make it clear that he has been reprimanded strongly for that. We are a fan of Mickey Mouse. It was wrong to compare Conservative economic policy to that of Mickey Mouse.
    I know exactly why the Leader of the Opposition wants to go back to the matter that he has raised. We have done a little research on the questions that he has asked in the past few months. He has asked one on Northern Ireland, two on adoption, four on the Hindujas—and another three,I suppose, today—seven on the dome and 14 on Europe. On education, he has asked none; on pensions, none; on transport, none; on jobs, none; and on poverty, none. How many has he asked on the countryside, the issue that Conservative Members care about so much? The answer, again, is a big zero
    The Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing to say about any serious policy, is raising those types of issues.
    I am not hurt by that. [Interruption.] No, I am not hurt by it. I am delighted by it because it shows that, when it comes to jobs, the economy, schools, hospitals and crime, we win and he loses.
    Mr. Marsha Singh: Will the Prime Minister join me in extending his profoundest sympathy to my constituents and to others in the United Kingdom who have lost family and friends in the greatest earthquake disaster in Indian history, a terrible human disaster? Although I welcome what the Government have already done—£10 million in aid has been made
    304
    available—will he assure me and the House that he will monitor the situation and that, if more needs to be done, more will be done?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Department for International Development has already reacted quickly not merely in terms of the aid that has been made available—some of it has already been passed on—but in respect of the people. It has attempted, with other countries, to ensure that we send out teams of experts, people who can help with the terrible disaster. Our deepest sympathy goes to the people in India who have been affected and to relatives and friends not just there, but here too.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Is the Prime Minister aware that, since he took office, in the county of Suffolk, there are 40 fewer police officers, crime has risen by 20 per cent. and, most horrifically and shockingly, crimes of violence are up 60 per cent? Only last week, the small post office in my rural Suffolk village was held up with almost unimaginable savagery. That is why so many of my constituents feel that the Prime Minister has let them down and that he misled them at the last general election.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it is appalling when a robbery takes place, as happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As he knows, we are putting in more money to fund more officers on the beat up and down the country, which is why, over the next few years, we will increase the number of police to the largest ever in this country. We are managing to do that only because of the extra investment that we are putting in.
    There will come a point when the Conservative party will have to choose between the two economic policies that it is now running. One is to tell everyone that it will spend more money. The other is to tell everyone that it will spend less. I think that most people know what Conservative policy is. We had cuts and privatisation before, and that is what we will get again. Until the Conservatives make a definitive statement on their economic intentions, we cannot take the complaints of people such as the hon. Gentleman seriously.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Lancashire are very appreciative of the orders that the Government have placed and the commitment they have shown to BAE Systems? Unfortunately, however, the loyal and highly skilled and motivated work force—who lobbied this Government and previous Governments to get those contracts—are being rewarded with thousands of job losses. That is not acceptable. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can use his good offices to meet the management of BAE Systems and the trade unions to see whether we can get that injustice reversed.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that there have been no specific announcements of redundancies. However, because of our concern about some of the press reports, meetings were held between my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness and the company. We shall ensure that we keep closely in touch. I certainly wish to pay tribute to the enormous work and skill of my hon. Friend's constituents and the many people at BAE Systems who

    305
    do an excellent job. BAE Systems is a very fine company and we certainly wish to see people continue being employed there.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that elderly people needing social care in England and Wales will be disadvantaged compared with those in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am just about prepared to wear that from the Liberal Democrats, but may I remind the hon. Lady that she supported a Government who, for 18 years, could have done all that on nursing and personal care, but did neither? We are introducing free nursing care for the first time in this country. As I have just explained, we do not believe it right to spend £1 billion on personal care when we think it better and fairer to use that money elsewhere in the health service. It is up to the Scottish Executive to decide how they wish to use their money.
    The one thing that I would say to the hon. Lady, as I have just said to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), is that we have been asking Conservative Members for a commitment that they will at least match us on social service funding. We still have not had a commitment from them. If the Conservatives were to return to power, people would not only not receive free personal care, they would not receive free nursing care either.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Many of us know of constituents whose daily lives are threatened by disruptive youths or by nuisance neighbours. I therefore welcome the Government's introduction and implementation of parenting orders, which are making a real difference to many communities across the country. However, may I ask my right hon. Friend what we can do to encourage local authorities to use antisocial behaviour orders more as a tool of intervention than as a weapon of last resort?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Antisocial behaviour orders, where they have been used, have been very popular indeed. That is because there is nothing worse for a family than living next door to people who are engaged in antisocial or criminal behaviour. It is essential that we take action, and I think that the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are very important. Moreover, as a result of legislation that we plan to introduce in this Session, a further battery of weapons including fixed-penalty notices will be available to police. We are quite determined to crack down on the yob culture in every way.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Prime Minister to look, not this afternoon but later, into
    306
    the case of Mr. Krishna Maharaj—who is black and British, and a business man who has been in jail in Florida for 14 years after being convicted of murder? Clive Stafford-Smith has said that, of the 300 cases that he has examined, he is most convinced of innocence in this man's case.
    Will the Prime Minister help the Foreign Office in its efforts at a consular level in Florida to look into the matter of the judge who heard the first week of the case and who was taken away in shackles after being accused of taking bribes? Other questions include whether, on two occasions, state attorneys went into Mr. Maharaj's cell, effectively to ask him for a bribe, and whether the Foreign Office can take up Governor Bush's suggestion that, although he did not know about the case, he was prepared to look into it? The case has had the support of the Home Secretary, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a former Attorney-General and the Mayor of London.
    The Prime Minister: The short answer is that I do not know about that individual case. I am perfectly prepared to look into it, although that should not be taken as prejudgment of the facts. I shall look into it and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government's decision to abolish the police housing allowance in 1994 was an act of monumental folly? It triggered quite unprecedented problems in the recruitment and retention of police officers in high-cost housing areas such as Reading, Thames Valley and elsewhere. Will he join me in questioning the wisdom of Thames Valley police authority, which has responded to the problem by flogging off 333 houses in the past six years? Furthermore, it plans to demolish 12 perfectly serviceable police houses to make way for a rifle range. Is that not simply Thatcherism gone mad?
    The Prime Minister: The abolition of the housing allowance in the Metropolitan area and elsewhere, and the loss of police houses, obviously had a serious impact on police recruitment. The additional resources made available by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mean that we are able to recruit more officers, although I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about the decision of the Thames Valley police authority.
    If my hon. Friend will allow me, however, I can tell him that is not the only police service in the country that it is receiving more police officers. A press release today from the North Yorkshire police is entitled "Force Strength to Reach All Time High". It states that, as a result of the additional money that the Government are putting in, by March 2002 there will be more police officers in North Yorkshire "than ever before".

Lockerbie
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the result of the Lockerbie bombing trial.
Almost two years ago, I announced that we had secured the agreement of the Libyan Government to the surrender of the two men charged with the Lockerbie bombing. That agreement brought an end to almost a decade of diplomatic stalemate. It was made possible by a unique legal innovation—a trial before Scottish judges under Scots law in a third country.
I want to record our gratitude to the Government of the Netherlands and to their local authorities for their ready and full co-operation in making available the excellent facilities at Camp Zeist. Their co-operation has confirmed the reputation of the Netherlands as a seat of international justice. I have today written to the Dutch Foreign Minister formally recording our thanks.
The whole House will wish to express its appreciation of the work of the police in what has been one of the longest and widest investigations in British history. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the other police forces that co-operated in the inquiry can take credit for the evidence that was brought to court.
The trial has been open and its proceedings have been punctilious. It is widely agreed that it has proved to be the fair trial that we promised.
The panel of Scottish judges has now returned its verdict. The judges unanimously found guilty Mr. Al Megrahi, an official of the Libyan intelligence service. They acquitted Mr. Fhimah. We accept the verdicts of the court. Mr. Al Megrahi is reported to intend to appeal. The House will understand that, in the circumstances, I will not comment on the substance of the legal arguments. However, the House will wish to know what international action the Government intend to take in the light of these verdicts.
The initiative to hold the trial at Camp Zeist was taken by Britain and secured by agreement with the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Libya. However, we made those arrangements in accordance with the resolution of the UN Security Council—a resolution that is binding on all member states.
Libya has complied with some of the requirements of the Security Council, such as handing over the two suspects. In the light of the guilty verdict, we will expect the Libyan Government to fulfil the remaining requirements. We therefore require Libya to accept responsibility for the act of its official who has been convicted. We also require Libya to pay compensation to the relatives of the victims.
Before coming to the House this afternoon, I spoke by telephone to Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. We both are clear that Libya must now fulfil the requirements of the Security Council in full, and we both committed our Governments to close co-operation to achieve those common objectives. I shall be able to continue that consultation with Colin Powell when I meet him in Washington next week.
It is also in Libya's own interests to be seen to co-operate fully with the Security Council. In the light of the conviction of one of their senior intelligence officials,
308
Libya's leaders need to take every opportunity to prove to the international community that they have definitively renounced terrorism and will abide by international law.
The Lockerbie bombing stands among the most brutal acts of mass murder. The community of Lockerbie suffered a sudden and devastating tragedy. I spoke after the verdicts to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who is today with the local people who have borne their tragedy with dignity.
Every passenger and crew member of Pan Am 103 was killed. That night, more than 400 parents lost a child, 76 women and men lost husbands or wives and seven children lost both parents.
Nothing can repair the loss of those who were murdered that night or remove the grief of their relatives. But today, at last, those relatives know that a fair trial in an open court has seen justice done.
3.36 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: I am grateful o the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Today, the whole House and, I suspect, the whole country will have had in its thoughts the families who lost beloved relations and friends when Pan Am 103 was casually blown out of the sky—those who perished in the air and those whose lives ended on the ground when the name of Lockerbie became synonymous with terrorism. For those families, the intervening 12 years must have seemed an endless struggle to come to terms with the brutal and savage attack conducted for a cause 1 million miles from its victims. We should honour those families for their fortitude in loss and their tenacity in never giving up the pursuit of justice. It will be, as the Foreign Secretary says, of some limited comfort to them that today at least one of the murderers has been brought eventually to justice.
This has been from the outset a massive investigation, carried out in conditions of immense difficulty. I join the Foreign Secretary in congratulating the police and all the other authorities for what they have done and thanking the Netherlands' authorities for allowing the trial to take place there.
A number of important questions remain. Although everyone will appreciate the difficulties of reinstating sanctions against Libya, will the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be wrong at this stage to lift them? It is clear that Libya has not fully complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. We all want Libya to become a respected member of the international community, but before there can be reconciliation there must be a full acceptance of responsibility and guilt. A Libyan official has been convicted of this atrocity. It follows inescapably that the Libyan Government are implicated. For Libya to re-enter the community of civilised nations, it must unequivocally accept specific responsibility for the bombing of flight 103 as well as for the killing of WPC Fletcher. Libya, as the Foreign Secretary has said, must pay whatever compensation is ordered by the courts.
Can the Foreign Secretary be confident that the Gaddafi leopard really has changed his spots and set his face against the sponsorship of international terrorism?
On the issue of a possible public inquiry, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us today that he has not finally ruled that out. Are there any serious prospects for

309
further criminal proceedings? If not, surely it could help the process of reconciliation for there to be the fullest scrutiny and disclosure of these hideous events.
Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?
This is an important step towards the conclusion of a tragic and bitter story. Of course, life will never be the same for the families of Libya's victims, but we stand ready to support the Government in their endeavours to bring about a finality that will enable those families, as much as they can, to move on, and eradicate the continuing threat of international terrorism.
Mr. Cook: May I first welcome the tone and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks? In response to his questions, I assure him and the House that there is no question of sanctions being lifted until Libya has complied in full with the requirements of previous United Nations Security Council resolutions. The sanctions cannot be lifted without the agreement of the Security Council, which requires the assent of all the permanent members. We will work closely with the United States to progress this matter within the Security Council. The two key steps that Libya must take to comply with the requirements are to accept responsibility and pay compensation. We secured both a statement of responsibility and a payment of compensation in the case of WPC Fletcher two years ago. We will be seeking to make the same progress on the Lockerbie bombing.
On Libya's actions on external terrorism, in 1992—in a statement that was made during the previous Administration—the Libyan Government renounced terrorism, but the requirement placed on them by the Security Council is to show by concrete actions that they mean that statement of renunciation. Libya's response to the verdict of guilty and the remaining requirements placed on it by the Security Council will be an important test of its commitment to abiding by international law, of which the Security Council resolution is part.
There has been no decision to rule out a public inquiry. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to reach a view on such an inquiry at this early stage, in particular, as an appeal is pending. No inquiry could commence before an appeal was concluded.
I have met relatives of those who died in Pan Am flight 103 and I am well aware of the strength of feeling among them. I have conveyed that to my colleagues the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who would have to decide on an inquiry. They will have to reflect on the strength of those feelings as against the many inquiries and the full criminal trial that have already taken place and decide whether useful information could emerge from any further inquiry at this stage.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because
310
we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons.
Finally, I join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing our sympathy and respect for the relatives. I pay tribute to Dr. Jim Swire and Rev. John Mosey, who have led the campaign for the relatives. It is fair to say that, without their vigilant and determined efforts, we might not be where we are today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In these early stages, is it the view of the British Government that Mr. Al Megrahi alone was responsible for conceiving and implementing that hideous crime?
Mr. Cook: No, definitely not. Indeed, the charge sheet charges him with conspiring with other persons unknown to carry out the bombing. Mr. Al Megrahi was charged along with Mr. Fhimah because they were the two named and known individuals against whom we judged we had criminal evidence to bring a charge and secure a conviction. In the case of Mr. Al Megrahi, that proved a valid judgment. If we discover criminal evidence that will enable us to charge others, we will do so.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear and helpful statement. Does he agree—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said today in the Scottish Parliament—that this trial has been a vindication not only of the Scottish system but of the international agreement to bring it about? Does he further agree that it demonstrates to international terrorists and all criminals that there is a system that can bring them to justice and secure a conviction and that they can no longer expect to get away with crimes with impunity? Does it not confirm the urgent need to follow that model and secure an agreement to set up an international criminal court?
Can the Foreign Secretary say a little more about how the verdict may affect relationships between Britain and Libya? Given that Colonel Gaddafi has at least, in principle, accepted the validity of the court and there has been some co-operation recently on the Yvonne Fletcher case, does he agree that this is the opportunity for Colonel Gaddafi to respond by acknowledging that Libyan officials were involved in that dreadful act; to apologise for the acts of terrorism that he says that he repudiates; and to be prepared to make recompense to those who have suffered so tragically? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Colonel Gaddafi should co-operate fully in any possible public inquiry? Understandably, the relatives are calling for that. Has not the pressure on the relatives been shown by the emotional reaction of Dr. Jim Swire to the verdict? I am glad to say that he has recovered, but that was a demonstration of that enormous emotional pressure.
Finally, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what co-operation the British Government would give the American relatives should they decide to pursue a civil action—or would he prefer the employment of some other method to ensure that the matter is resolved in a way that gives Libya an opportunity to prove that it wants to be treated as part of the international community, rather than being pushed further to the fringes?
Mr. Cook: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view on Scottish justice. Indeed, during the past few days, it has

311
given me some satisfaction to hear a large number of people from America and other countries who attended the proceedings paying tribute to the proceedings and to the punctiliousness of the court and the panel of judges.
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the importance of an international criminal court. One of the best ways that we can prevent future atrocities is by making it clear that there is no hiding place for those who commit them. I look forward to the support—of which I am confident—of the hon. Gentleman's party when that Bill comes to the House.
On the Libyan leadership, I entirely accept—as the Libyans, too, would be wise to recognise—that, if they want to prove their new credentials and a new spirit towards the international community, the best way to do so will be by rapidly fulfilling the remaining requirements—accepting responsibility for what happened and paying compensation for it.
It is, of course, entirely up to the American relatives, or other relatives, to proceed by taking a civil action in the courts. Any initial payment of compensation must not preclude the obligation on the Libyan Government to meet an award for compensation in a future civil action.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not sheer common sense to conclude that the convicted person can hardly have acted on his own initiative and that the instructions came from the very top in Libya? Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice will be done only when those who gave the instruction for that act of mass murder are also in the dock?
Mr. Cook: I have already indicated that the charge sheet explicitly recognised that Mr. Al Megrahi did not work alone. We have no criminal evidence that we could take into court with the hope of a criminal conviction against any other individual in a fair and open trial. In the fulness of time, this result may produce other leads; if so, we shall certainly follow them up. In the meantime, whether Mr. Al Megrahi acted alone or under instruction, the Government of Libya must accept responsibility for what a senior official did. That is why we require of the Libyan Government a statement accepting responsibility, and accepting responsibility for paying compensation to those who lost relatives in that terrible atrocity.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the outcome is a vindication not only of the Scottish legal system but of those relatives such as Dr. Jim Swire, who campaigned for the third-country option long before it became Government policy? Although I realise that the Foreign Secretary has not ruled out a public inquiry and I accept his point that the time is not quite right for a decision on the matter, will he at least say that he understands the strength of the arguments made by relatives—that there are wider implications to the atrocity, which go far beyond individual guilt or innocence, and that they could usefully be explored in such a forum?
Mr. Cook: On the latter point, of course, there are issues that were not explored during the trial, because the trial focused on the particular question of guilt or
312
innocence. However, it should be pointed out that during the trial, we paraded much evidence and information which for 12 or 10 years previously we had been obliged to keep to ourselves because it would have compromised a trial. In addition to the trial, a fatal accident inquiry took place and the President's commission was set up in the United States.
My colleagues will need to reflect on those matters when they decide whether to order an inquiry. They have not reached such a decision—nor should they until the appeal proceedings are disposed of.
I would absolutely endorse the tributes that the hon. Gentleman and others have paid to Dr. Jim Swire. I was concerned today to hear that he had collapsed, and delighted to hear that he had recovered. It has been a very gruelling 12 years for him and the other relatives. I very much believe that, when they have recovered from an undoubtedly emotional occasion, they can take some satisfaction from knowing that they have played their part in seeing justice being done for their loved ones.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend take time to remind the House that at the stage when the trial was agreed on, the Libyan Government made it plain that they would accept absolutely and completely the outcome of the Scottish judicial system? It is important to remind the House and the Libyan Government of that statement.
Will my right hon. Friend thank the League of Arab States, which played such a big part not only in impressing on the Libyans the fact that, if they wanted to return to the international fold, they would have to accept requests to give these individuals up for trial, but in convincing the United Kingdom Government and the international community that the individuals would indeed be given up, enabling us to move towards establishing the court in The Hague?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right that the Government of Libya had indicated that they would accept the outcome of the trial, and I can inform the House that in the course of the day, three very senior figures in the Libyan Administration have gone public saying that they accept and respect the judgments of the court.
I take the opportunity to praise not only the League of Arab States and the Arab nations but the other international bodies that helped us to secure the trial.
I particularly mention the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who worked very hard to secure the terms under which the two men were handed over for trial. I hope to speak to Kofi Annan by telephone tomorrow, and we shall see how we can follow the matter up in the United Nations.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The news that the right hon. Gentleman has just given about the three high-ranking officials from Libya is welcome. He is probably not aware that BBC News 24 was quoting, I believe, a Deputy Foreign Minister from Libya, as saying that the result of the verdict had to be an immediate lifting of sanctions and a compensation package for the Libyan people for the effects of sanctions. May I take it that that is not the view that is coming through via

313
official channels? When does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate receiving an official response from the Libyan Government?
Mr. Cook: We are already in dialogue with the Libyan Government. We shall continue to be so, not only bilaterally but through the United Nations. We should not necessarily expect the two further steps that we require to take place before the conclusion of an appeal, and such an appeal may well take most of the rest of the year; but we do have a guilty verdict, and against that guilty verdict there can be no question of any compensation for Libya for the effect of sanctions, nor, until the Libyan Government comply with all the requirements of the resolutions, of a formal lifting of sanctions.
Mr. Bruce George: Will my right hon. Friend pass on from everyone in the House our congratulations not only to the police of many countries for this incredible investigation, but to those hundreds—probably thousands—of others outside the police forces who were engaged in the investigation and prosecution?
The disaster led to many changes in airline and airport security, but one suspects that after so many years, some of the memories may have been lost and some of the improvements unmade. Will my right hon. Friend give assurances to the House that he will again contact those of his colleagues, nationally and internationally, inside and outside Foreign Ministries, to evaluate whether further improvements need to be made in airport, airline and transport security? Disasters such as that at Lockerbie could well be replicated, and we do not wish to come to the House five, 10 or 20 years from now to announce the successful outcome of an investigation into another catastrophe such as the one we witnessed at Lockerbie.
Mr. Cook: I absolutely take the opportunity offered by my right hon. Friend's question to express congratulations to all those who have assisted in any way in this outcome. Many hundreds of members of the public did assist. A key part of the jigsaw was provided by a couple walking the dog on the Northumberland moors, who discovered a fragment of the bomb and who had the wisdom to retrieve it and take it to a police station, without which effort we might not be where we are today. All those who have assisted in any way are entirely entitled to their credit for their part in having secured this conviction.
On safety, we should be clear that it is of course 12 years since the Lockerbie bombing, and enormous changes have taken place in airport and airline security during that period. I am sure that my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will carefully consider the verdict, the trial and the evidence to find out whether any further lesson can be learned, but I assure the House and the public that the state of airport security is not as it was 12 years ago when the bombing took place.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Three of my constituents and the son of Mr. and Mrs. Martin Cadman were killed in the Lockerbie crash. I know from subsequent talks over many years with the Cadmans about the terrible emotional pressures that came from not knowing how the crash could have happened. The court judgment at least begins to piece together how the terrorist
314
route worked and, at last, international justice, based on Scottish law, has brought people to account. Will the Foreign Secretary reaffirm that he and all his European Union colleagues will continue to try to find out what else went on to enable the person who has been convicted today to carry out the atrocity? Will he reassure all the relatives that there will be unceasing liaison with the Libyan Government to try to get them to understand the human catastrophe and emotional pressure that the actions caused?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to maintain that pressure, through dialogue in Libya and international forums, until we ensure that we have secured an appropriate response to the terrible tragedy and the appalling mass murder that took place that night. I also have met Mr. and Mrs. Cadman and know exactly from my meeting them and other relatives the intense emotional distress that the tragedy has caused them. I think that, in many ways, not knowing what happened is much more distressing than knowing the worst. I hope that now that some of the information about what happened is available to the relatives, it may in some way help them to come to terms with the appalling loss that they experienced.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Foreign Secretary mentioned the possibility of an appeal. I do not seek to trespass into that field, but can he tell me who will hear the appeal and where it will be heard, bearing in mind the fact that the trial was heard in the Netherlands? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will take this brilliant example of Scottish justice operating abroad as a method of persuading his opposite number in the Bush Administration that the creation of an international criminal court is a necessity and that the American objections to such a court should now cease?
Mr. Cook: First, the appeal will be held in Camp Zeist and Mr. Al Megrahi will remain in detention there pending that appeal, which will be heard by judges of the Scottish Appeal Court. It will not be a formal sitting of the Scottish Appeal Court, which of course cannot sit outside Scotland, but it will be drawn from judges of that court.
Of course I anticipate that, when I see Mr. Colin Powell next week, we will discuss the international criminal court as part of our agenda. We are strongly committed to it and colleagues in the House have drawn attention to the importance of the proceedings for an international system of justice. In fairness, I should record that the statute of the international criminal court does not include acts of terrorism, on the grounds that there is already adequate international law on that point, and already adequate international remedy.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In recognition of the Foreign Secretary's already great involvement in securing a trial, which many people did not think possible, may I say that it brings tremendous relief to the families involved in the mass murder? I also met Dr. Jim Swire, when I was a junior Transport Minister. Will the Foreign Secretary think carefully about what the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said about re-alerting airports and ports to

315
their security role? One of the dangers is that we become complacent, and we should never become complacent about security.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can say, now that the trial is over, that there were moments when I wondered whether it would be possible to secure it; but, by perseverance, we got there, and today we can see why all the efforts of so many different people were worth while.
I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have made improvements and changes but, unfortunately, those who seek to threaten the safety of passengers also look for ways in which they can change the threat and examine how they can harness evolving technology. For that reason, we can never afford to be complacent.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the steadfastness of Dr. Jim Swire and the victims' families. The fact that the trial, which took place in difficult circumstances, is seen to have been manifestly fair is a significant tribute to Scots law, to the authorities who investigated the case and to the lawyers and judges who took part in the case. I refer to the prosecuting team and, most important, to the defence team, who played their part in ensuring that the trial was seen to be fair and that the evidence was properly examined.
I remind my right hon. Friend that it was an expensive investigation and an expensive trial. The universal view is that it was worth every single penny. That has been demonstrated today. Will my right hon. Friend remember that point when this House debates the international criminal court, because those who argue that we should resist its establishment because the expense would be too great are marshalling their forces? Some of them are doing that in the other place at this very moment.
Mr. Cook: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments on the strength of Scots law, which were in no way undermined by the fact that he is a Scots lawyer. One of the exports that we identify for Scotland in the future is the Scots legal system and legal process.
I would share my hon. Friend's impatience if anybody were to criticise on the ground of cost what has been an historic legal innovation and a remarkable achievement 12 years after such a brutal mass murder. If anyone was now to say that we should not have done what we did because of the cost, the whole House would blow them out of the water. Nobody could possibly contemplate such criticism. Justice cannot necessarily be bought at a price that we can measure only in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.
The same arguments could apply to the international criminal court, but I assure the House that the Government will take a very hard-headed approach to how the burden is shared. That is one reason why we will be anxious to ratify the treaty in the near future. If we are one of the first 60 countries to bring the court into being, we will have a very substantial say in its administration and the method of payment.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I invite the Foreign Secretary to join me in paying a particular tribute
316
to the men and women of the air accidents investigation branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is based in Farnborough in my constituency? They did a fantastic job in painstakingly reconstructing the remains of the Boeing 747, the nose cone of which rests in Farnborough and is a vivid testimony to the appalling act of terrorism that was perpetrated. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the extraordinary skill and professionalism of that group of men and women, whose reputation is revered not only in this country but worldwide?
Mr. Cook: I have no hesitation in endorsing the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The work of the investigation team from Farnborough played a vital role in the overall inquiry. Indeed, it included the construction of an entire life-sized mock-up of the Pan Am flight before it was destroyed. The team played an important part in taking forward our case.
As the hon. Gentleman has referred to the investigation and rescue teams, I pay particular tribute to all those who, on that awful night and the night after, sought to recover the bodies and to deal with the appalling tragedy. A number of police officers from my constituency attended on that night; they were drafted in to provide assistance. The circumstances in which the police, the Army and other rescue services operated were appalling and harrowing. We should remember with gratitude the enormous dedication that they showed.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Although the pursuit of justice in a matter such as this should never be compromised by cost, does my right hon. Friend have any idea of how much it will have cost to pursue the case and to hold a possible appeal? In particular, is there any possibility of recovering any of that cost from the United States, which I know is behind with its United Nations contributions? Perhaps it may want to contribute toward the costs, as this has been a joint enterprise in which it has been involved. Is this a matter that my right hon. Friend may wish to investigate?
Mr. Cook: I think that the frank answer to that is no. We had the legal jurisdiction for where the crime took place and we fully accepted our obligation to ensure that it was investigated and punished. We would not regard the legal costs of the judicial process as appropriate for international compensation. If we can share the burden or anybody else is willing to share it, we will pursue the matter. However, we should accept our obligation to ensure that justice is done, and take pride in the fact that we have now seen it done.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Foreign Secretary and other hon. Members have paid generous tribute to my constituent Dr. Jim Swire, whose unremitting efforts on behalf of his murdered daughter have led to today's successful conclusion of the trial. It is important at times such as these to remember the victims. Constituents who remember Flora describe her as a beautiful and talented young woman who was cut down in the prime of her life. Consequently, the Swire family must always live with a great sense of loss. Will the right hon. Gentleman continue not only to pay tribute to Dr. Swire, but to spell out his important role in efforts to bring the murderers to trial and to ensure that one of them

317
was found guilty? Will he also wish Dr. Swire peace of mind, now that after 12 years he finally has a result and has found somebody who is going to spend 20 years of his life in prison for the murder of his daughter and others?
Mr. Cook: I endorse absolutely the hon. Lady's remarks about her constituent. I have met Dr. Jim Swire many times during the past four years and I entirely respect the enormous vigour, but also patience and perseverance, with which he has pursued the matter.
Two years ago, I attended the service that was conducted in Westminster abbey on the 10th anniversary of the bombing, in which a candle was lit for every one of those who had perished and their names were read out one by one. It was a deeply moving occasion. We should never allow those who died to dwindle into mere statistics. We must remember that each of the victims was an individual and had relatives whose emotional grief during the past 12 years we can barely comprehend.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: As the Foreign Secretary knows, President Gaddafi was head of Government and head of state in Libya in December 1998 and remains in that position now. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the restoration to normality of relations between the United Kingdom and Libya while President Gaddafi remains head of state could give all the wrong signals to other countries that promote and propagate international terrorism?
Mr. Cook: Diplomatic relations with Libya were suspended by the time of the Lockerbie bombing because of the murder of WPC Fletcher. In 1999, I reported to the House that we had achieved a satisfactory conclusion with the Libyan Government, in which they had agreed to take part in an investigation, to pay compensation and to accept responsibility. Their statement also renounced terrorism. On that basis, we resumed international relations. I point out that the statement was welcomed by the Opposition, who also welcomed the resumption of diplomatic relations.
I should like to clarify that diplomatic relations with a country are not a reward for good conduct, but a basis for communication. They enable us to speak frankly and fully. To be honest, I think that that channel for dialogue might have assisted us in achieving an agreement earlier on the surrender of the two Lockerbie suspects. We will certainly use it in the months ahead, in order to secure a response to the guilty verdict.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee),
That—
(1) the matter of Building Safer Communities in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
(2) the Committee shall meet on Tuesday 13th February at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of Building Safer Communities in Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales.))
The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 0.

Division No. 94]

[4.9 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cooper, Yvette

Ainger, Nick

Corbett, Robin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cotter, Brian

Alexander, Douglas

Cousins, Jim

Allan, Richard

Crausby, David

Allen, Graham

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cummings, John

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Darvill, Keith

Atkins, Charlotte

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Austin, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bailey, Adrian

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ballard, Jackie

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Banks, Tony

(B'ham Hodge H)

Barnes, Harry

Dismore, Andrew

Barron, Kevin

Dobbin, Jim

Battle, John

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Beard, Nigel

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Doran, Frank

Begg, Miss Anne

Dowd, Jim

Beggs, Roy

Drew, David

Beith, RtHon A J

Drown, Ms Julia

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Edwards, Huw

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Efford, Clive

Bennett, Andrew F

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benton, Joe

Ennis, Jeff

Bermingham, Gerald

Feam, Ronnie

Best, Harold

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Betts, Clive

Fisher, Mark

Blackman, Liz

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Borrow, David

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brake, Tom

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Brand, Dr Peter

Foulkes, George

Breed, Colin

Fyfe, Maria

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gardiner, Barry

Browne, Desmond

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burnett, John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cable, Dr Vincent

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Caplin, Ivor

Grocott, Bruce

Casale, Roger

Grogan, John

Caton, Martin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cawsey, Ian

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hancock, Mike

Chidgey, David

Hanson, David

Clapham, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Clark, Dr Lynda

Healey, John

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heppell, John

Clelland, David

Hesford, Stephen

Clwyd, Ann

Hill, Keith

Coaker, Vernon

Hinchliffe, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Hoey, Kate

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

319

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Martlew, Eric

Howells, Dr Kim

Meale, Alan

Hoyle, Lindsay

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hutton, John

Miller, Andrew

Iddon, Dr Brian

Moffatt, Laura

lllsley, Eric

Moore, Michael

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Jamieson, David

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

(B'ham Yardley)

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Mountford, Kali

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Mudie, George

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Ms Jenny

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Norris, Dan

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Oaten, Mark

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Joyce, Eric

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

O'Hara, Eddie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Olner, Bill

Keetch, Paul

Organ, Mrs Diana

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Kemp, Fraser

Pearson, Ian

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Perham, Ms Linda

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Pickthall, Colin

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Pike, Peter L

Khabra, Piara S

Plaskitt, James

Kidney, David

Pond, Chris

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pound, Stephen

Kirkwood, Archy

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lammy, David

Primarolo, Dawn

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Prosser, Gwyn

Laxton, Bob

Purchase, Ken

Lepper, David

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Leslie, Christopher

Quinn, Lawrie

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rammell, Bill

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Rapson, Syd

Livsey, Richard

Raynsford, Nick

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rendel, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Robertson, John

Love, Andrew

(Glasgow Anniesland)

McAvoy, Thomas

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Rogers, Allan

Macdonald, Calum

Rooney, Terry

McDonnell, John

Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

McFall, John

Rowlands, Ted

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Roy, Frank

McIsaac, Shona

Ruane, Chris

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Ruddock, Joan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McNulty, Tony

Salmond, Alex

MacShane, Denis

Salter, Martin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sanders, Adrian

McWalter, Tony

Savidge, Malcolm

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sawford, Phil

Mallaber, Judy

Sedgemore, Brian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

320

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Touhig, Don

Shipley, Ms Debra

Truswell, Paul

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Tyler, Paul

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Tynan, Bill

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

Vaz, Keith

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Snape, Peter

Ward, Ms Claire

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N

Southworth, Ms Helen

Watts, David

Spellar, John

Webb, Steve

Squire, Ms Rachel

White, Brian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

(Swansea W)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Willis, Phil

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Wilson, Brian

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Winnick, David

Stringer, Graham

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Woolas, Phil

Stunell, Andrew

Worthington, Tony

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

(Dewsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Timms, Stephen

Mr. Mike Hall and

Tipping, Paddy

Mr. Greg Pope.

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Eric Forth and

Miss Julie Kirkbride

Question accordingly agreed to.

Point of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to read early-day motion 272 on today's Order Paper. It states that Adrian McMenamin, who is a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Wales, has been spending much time and, therefore, money from the public purse, downloading and inputting stupid and offensive remarks about Plaid Cymru-the Party of Wales. Is that good use of public funds? Has the Secretary of State for Wales or the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that they want to make a statement about that grossly offensive behaviour?
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Speaker cannot be drawn into such an argument. However, now that the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on record, I am sure that it will be duly noted by the appropriate Minister.

Divorce (Religious Marriages)
4.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision enabling a court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce.
The idea is not new. Indeed, Lord Lester introduced a similar Bill in the previous Session. It completed all its stages in another place, only to be blocked in the House. The essential provisions of the Bill were previously enacted in part II of the Family Law Act 1996. However, they have not been effected and are to be repealed for reasons that are wholly unconnected with the Bill, which the Government support.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy a disadvantage suffered by Jewish men and women who are prevented from remarrying because of the refusal of their partner to grant or accept a religious divorce. The basic Jewish laws relating to marriage and divorce are biblical and, therefore, cannot be changed. In Jewish law, marriage and divorce are consensual processes: an individual cannot be married or divorced against his or her will. This creates a problem in cases in which one party seeks to end the marriage and the other refuses to grant or receive a divorce. Such a divorce is called a get in Hebrew.
For a civil divorce to be effective in Jewish law, a get must be obtained. This is a consensual divorce in which mutual co-operation between the parties is required. The husband has to go before a Beth Din Jewish court for a get and deliver it to his wife, and she is required to accept it. If he does not do so, the wife cannot re-marry in Jewish law, although he may be able to do so. Jewish authorities have long been sensitive to the problem, especially when it is the wife who is trapped in a marriage that she seeks to end. In Hebrew, she is called an agunah, meaning one who is chained to a spouse against her will.
In recent years, the Jewish community in Britain has done all that it can internally to alleviate the problem through its rabbinical courts. A pre-nuptial agreement has been instituted, and it is currently signed by the majority of couples, binding them, should their marriage fail, to attend a Jewish court to resolve outstanding differences.
Synagogue bodies have agreed to institute communal sanctions against recalcitrant spouses. However, the first is a voluntary undertaking, and the second may simply be ignored by a determined spouse, driven by the that often accompanies divorce. A well publicised example of that was a case at the end of last year in which a rabbi took an advertisement in the Jewish Chronicle to name and shame a recalcitrant husband, albeit to no avail.
Jewish women who wish to conduct their family relationships within the framework of their religious beliefs have virtually no power to compel a reluctant husband to grant them a get. Without a get, a divorcee who has a child by her subsequent partner is defined as an adulteress under Jewish law. Her child becomes a mamzer, an illegitimate outcast, which is a stigma that carries on into future generations. If a wife refuses to accept her husband's get, he is known as an agun. However, he does not suffer from those same disadvantages. As a result, a husband can effectively hold his wife to ransom, and can demand money, property, or other rights concerning custody or child maintenance in return for a get.
322
There are no reliable statistics of the total number of women affected, but seven cases in the Hendon area have been referred to me. No doubt there are many more in my own constituency of which I am unaware, and if they are multiplied throughout the Jewish community nationwide, the House can make its own assessment of the scale of the problem.
The cases of which I have heard reveal devastating personal tragedies. For example, there was a case in which a woman left an unhappy marriage. Her husband tried to get their child put into an orphanage. There have been long legal wranglings, and she still does not have her get. Another case involved a husband who left a 26-year marriage soon after the death of one of the children. He subsequently tried to blackmail the father of his wife for large sums of money.
A further case involved a woman who, at a young age, married a man who became aggressive. For example, he brought the garage door down on her head. He would not give her a get. His attitude was that if he could not have her, no one else could. There was also the case of a very young woman with young children who moved from Stamford Hill to Hendon to escape the violent husband who had abused her and the children. After six years of difficult and protracted negotiations, she succeeded in obtaining her get last year. Another case involved a woman whose husband deserted her when she was eight and a half months pregnant. She had to sell her flat and move, with the baby, into a rented room to pay him off in return for the get.
The Bill will provide a real remedy for real women such as these, because it will rectify the serious anomaly in English law that creates that extremely undesirable state of affairs. Under English law, a
marriage between two persons professing the Jewish religion according to the usage of the Jews
that has been solemnised on the authority of a superintendent registrar's certificate is recognised as a civil marriage, but a civil divorce may take place without a Jewish divorce having been given. That results in a so-called limping marriage, in which the parties are free to remarry under civil law, but not under religious law.
That is why the Jewish community has now sought the assistance of civil law, in the form of a provision that a judge should have the discretionary power to withhold the grant of a civil divorce until a Jewish divorce has been given.
The Bill would enable the court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce. That would provide a lever with which pressure could be brought to bear on the husband to agree to a get. In cases in which it would be unjust for him not to do so, he would not be granted a civil divorce—which would normally be sufficient for his purposes—without agreeing to the religious divorce that his wife needed to avoid the stigma that I have described.
Such provisions have been enacted in our own law, although they have not been brought into force for the reasons to which I referred, and similar ones are already part of Canadian, South African and New York state law and are under consideration in Scotland. They would not

323
resolve all cases, but would resolve many—namely, those in which the husband wishes to remarry and thus needs a civil divorce.
It is important to understand that the Jewish community is seeking the assistance of civil law not to solve a religious problem, but, first, to end the anomaly whereby a Jewish marriage is also a civil marriage, although a civil divorce may be unaccompanied by a Jewish divorce; and, secondly, to seek the assistance of the civil courts to bring a couple to a Jewish court, which itself would undertake to resolve the dispute, allowing both parties to remarry according to their religious convictions. The Bill would also empower the Lord Chancellor to extend its provisions by order to other faiths, so it could also provide relief in similar cases within, for example, the Islamic community.
324
My Bill has the support of all synagogue bodies in Anglo-Jewry, orthodox and progressive, as well as the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies and the agunot campaign. I hope that it also has the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Ivan Lewis, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. Stephen Twigg and Mr. James Clappison.

DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES)
Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to make provision enabling a court to require the dissolution of a religious marriage before granting a civil divorce: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 37].

Police
4.32 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02 (HC 156), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I am pleased to take part in the annual debate with colleagues on the police grant settlement. This is an important moment. Perhaps I might begin with a small point of procedure and process. I very much regret that the debate will last only an hour and a half. As the House will know, Standing Orders require us to have 90-minute debates on the police grant and each of the two local government grant settlements. In accordance with our practice over previous years, the Government tabled a motion that would have enabled us to have a three-hour debate on the police and to take the two local government motions together. That motion was objected to not by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)— I pay tribute to him and his Front-Bench colleagues who want fully to debate these matters, despite the weakness of their case—but by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and one or two others. I can say only that the parliamentary games that Conservative Back Benchers have played have reduced the House's chance to discuss this important question and most Members regret that.
On the procedural point, hon. Members have the right to a vote at the end of the debate, as is convention. However, having just witnessed an absurd vote of 334 to zero, which took up time to no avail, I remind the House—I am sure that the official Opposition will respect this—that a vote against the police grant report is effectively a vote to deny police forces the money that they need to carry out their police work. I would have no hesitation in making that political point were such a vote to take place.
Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister is of course right that a three-hour debate on such an important subject would have been better than one of 90 minutes. However, as the names of those who object do not appear in Hansard and, in particular, as Ministers have recently curtailed debate day after day after day, is not it a bit rich for him to make that point?
Mr. Clarke: I work on a basis that I can assure the hon. Gentleman is not police practice in this country—usual suspects. The usual suspects for such disruption of the business of the House include those I mentioned.
Mr. David Wilshire: I understand the point the Minister makes about the numbers voting in Divisions, but is he not being slightly disingenuous in suggesting that anyone who votes against his proposals is opposed to money for the police? As he knows only too well, I shall probably have to vote against them unless he can reassure me later that the grant will be varied so that Surrey gets a decent share. Does he accept that, if I do so, I shall not be voting against all money for the police, but voting against the unfair treatment of my county?
Mr. Clarke: Actually, I cannot accept that. Yesterday a delegation came to discuss the matter with me, and with
326
the hon. Gentleman and his Surrey colleagues. I hope he would acknowledge that it was a friendly debate, in which I sought to deal with some of the points that were made. I shall endeavors to do the same if the hon. Gentleman is called to speak—and, judging by the relatively small number of Opposition Back Benchers present, I should have thought that he had a good chance. He is wrong, however: a decision to vote against this grant is a decision to ensure that Surrey, along with all other forces, gets no money.
The police funding settlement for 2001–02 has enabled us to give a strong boost to policing. Overall, the centrally supported provision for policing will increase by 10.1 per cent. next year to £8.495 billion, with further increases of 6.1 per cent. in 2002–03 and 3.1 per cent. in 2003–04. That is a real-terms increase of 7.4 per cent. on the provision for 2000–01, and we are confident that it is a real incentive to improvement in policing on the ground.
As part of the consultation exercise on the settlement, I have received letters from a number of chief constables and police authorities, as well as from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. I have also had meetings with Members from a number of areas—I mentioned Surrey a moment ago—and have responded to letters from Members representing many forces. In each case, Members were supportive of their local forces, but raised various concerns about the distribution of funding, overall funding levels for their forces, and pressures on forces to go on delivering service at the same level. I shall deal with those issues later.
The Government's overall spending plans for the police over the next three years were announced on 19 July by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary following the 2000 spending review. By 2003–04, police funding will have risen by nearly £1.6 billion from this year's provision—£9.3 billion as against £7.7 billion. That is a rise of more than 20 per cent. Most will be paid to police authorities as grant, either for general purposes or to support targeted initiatives.
For 2001–02, the total amount of police authority general expenditure to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share of funds will be £7.732 billion. That is an increase of £377 million—5.1 per cent.—on 2000–01. The amount is known as total standard spending. Grant on TSS is paid directly to police authorities, and it is for them and for chief officers to determine how best to allocate their resources, taking into account local operational needs and priorities.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether the money that he proposes to allocate does any of the following? First, does it guarantee that by the end of the coming financial year there will be more police officers than there were when the Government came to office? Secondly, does it guarantee that all police forces in England and Wales will be able to increase their numbers next year? A couple of months ago, the Home Secretary wrote to me saying that he expected at least four forces to experience another fall next year. Will that still be the case? Lastly, if the settlement is so generous, why was the Home Office allocation for the coming year over 6 per cent., while the allocation for the police budget was only 3.8 per cent.?
Mr. Clarke: I will respond to those points, but I shall do so at the appropriate point in my speech. I have a lot

327
to get through, but I shall try to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points. The only one that I did not intend to cover is his final point, but I can say that the allocation of Home Office central funding includes money to finance a number of significant things we are doing to support the police generally. There is actually a reduction in the amount to be spent by the Home Office on "bureaucrats". We have made efficiency savings in the Home Office as elsewhere, but there have been significant increases in allocations to, for instance, the forensic science service, to enable it to deal with DNA matters.
I shall come to the question of police numbers in a moment.
Additional police funding on targeted initiatives mostly goes to police authorities. The four main schemes are to increase police officer numbers—that is the crime fighting fund; to tackle the problems of policing sparsely populated areas; to pay for new technology in the form of Airwave, the modern police radio system; and to expand the DNA programme to cover the whole of the known active criminal population by 2004.
In July, the Home Secretary announced the expansion of the crime fighting fund, funding an extra 4,000 officers and taking the total to an additional 9,000 recruits over and above those already planned for the three years from April 2000. A total of £151 million will be available in 2001–02 for recruitment and training, of which £129 million will be allocated to police authorities for local recruitment and pay of officers recruited under the scheme.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: May I finish what I am going to say on that point and deal with the police numbers point? Before I leave it, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The crime fighting fund is ring-fenced funding for front-line policing to help drive forward the Government's campaign to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime. The fund was established in response to concerns about falling police numbers. Those concerns are shared by the police, the public and many hon. Members. By operating a ring-fenced fund, we are doing as much as we can to ensure that resources are directed precisely at increasing officer numbers. We are already seeing the turn of the tide after a prolonged period in which numbers have fallen without check. I want the change to be decisive.
I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I can offer no guarantees on those matters because, as I indicated earlier, how police authorities, in consultation with chief officers, decide to spend their resources is, rightly, a matter for them. Ultimately, they will decide what they do.
The only guarantees that I can give are on the crime fighting fund allocation, which can be spent only on police numbers. We will definitely allocate the money to the forces to spend if they wish to do so, but, to be helpful, I can say that 13 forces already have a higher strength of police officers than in March 1997, the last figures before the Government came to office. Those are Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed-Powys,
328
Gloucestershire, Gwent, Leicestershire, Northumbria, North Wales, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Thames Valley and West Midlands. All today have more officers in place than when the Government came to power. That is about a third of all police authorities.
I expect that, by the time we get to March this year, about a half of all police authorities will have the number of police officers that there were in March 1997. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey what the position will be in March 2002, at the end of the five-year term of the Parliament, because the uncertainties are too far ahead, but the Government's intention is that, by March 2002, there will be more officers, taking the country as a whole, than there were in March 1997. I believe that that will be the case.
That is the best that I can do to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sorry that it does not give him the guarantee that he seeks, but it is a categoric statement both of what we have achieved and what we intend to achieve. In a debate this morning on police resourcing in south Buckinghamshire, I was able to point out that the Thames Valley force already had 53 more officers than when the Government came to power. That extends in different degrees to every force.
Dr. Cable: Can the Minister explain the disparity between the amounts that he has estimated will be available to London under the crime fighting fund and the much lower figures that are being used by the Metropolitan police, which have led the Mayor and the Greater London Authority to make what in many people's eyes are extravagant demands for precepting on local authorities, but are based on different assumptions about the amount of money that is available under the crime fighting fund?
Mr. Clarke: I do not like to be an anorak, but I am becoming almost a world expert on the different methods of counting police numbers in the Metropolitan police authority area, in Government statistics and a in range of other statistical areas, so I will not venture into the territory that the hon. Gentleman invites me into, but there is a central issue for the Metropolitan area, which he is well aware of, representing it as he does: the distinction between the amount of money allocated to the Met that would enable it recruit officers and its actual ability to recruit officers at this time. That has been a dominant theme of the discussions both in the House and with the Metropolitan police.
I hope, however, that the pay settlement that we have indicated and the recent announcement on rail travel for police officers is making a difference. Anecdotally, I can certainly say—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can confirm it—that our recent announcement on travel on public transport in the metropolitan area has been very positively received by police in the metropolis.
Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that there is cause for huge concern in London? Just within the past year, the Metropolitan police have had to revise upwards by 25 per cent. their wastage figures on the number of officers who are likely to leave over the period covered by the crime fighting fund. As for the fighting fund, is it not true that the Metropolitan police have not been able to recruit and

329
are asking to carry forward to next year about 115 placements that they have not been able to make? Is it not wrong to be complacent about that?
Mr. Clarke: The idea that I was complacent about it is absurd. In fact, in my reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I indicated precisely the opposite.
We have been able to be flexible in relation not only to the metropolis, but to other forces such as Thames Valley police in rejigging the crime fighting fund initial allocations, to meet the particular circumstances of different forces. Therefore, some forces have accelerated and some have delayed their allocations, in a manner that I think is beneficial to those forces.
As we are discussing the metropolis, I also want to express my very strong support for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, and for his deputy Ian Blair for the work that they are doing to try to revitalise the Met's approach on those key issues.
I agree, however, with the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. There is a very serious issue, and I have discussed it very openly in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we believe that we are taking action to address it. Nevertheless, he is quite right. If he wants to make political capital out of it, he certainly should do so. There are issues that have to be addressed. I say that we are addressing them, although there is a great deal to do. He may try to claim that we are not doing that, but I do not think that it would be substantiated.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the flexibility that he has shown on the issue. However, is there not a particular problem in constituencies such as mine that do not have the special measures provided to the Metropolitan police but are only five miles outside the Met area? He says that Thames Valley has had 53 additional officers, but the fact is that they have not been sent to Slough. What can he do to ensure that Slough gets the officers it needs to police our community properly?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes her point, as always, very articulately. We discussed the matter in her constituency with her police in Slough, because I acknowledge her point. She is right to say that in the socio-economic categories, for example, Slough is more similar to some of the London boroughs than it is to many of the other areas of the Thames Valley force. I can say, first, that we are allocating more resources to Thames Valley.
Secondly, the police negotiating board is currently considering the matter of pay for forces in the ring outside London. I hope that it will come to a decision soon. If it comes to the type of decision that I know that my hon. Friend is pressing, I think that it will make a little bit of a difference.
Thirdly, a process has been taking place in the Thames Valley authority, which has been explained to me, on the allocation of resources within the Thames Valley area.
Today at Prime Minister's questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made some points on the issue of police housing. I tell the Thames Valley police authority that it should take very seriously
330
precisely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is making. For our part, we could not and will not overthrow the authority of the chief constable and the police authority. However, we shall try to do what we can to encourage the type of serious attention to the problems in Slough to which she referred. I pay tribute to her assiduous campaigning on the matter.
Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister will be aware that the people of Kingston still do not believe that the money that the Government gave to the Greater London Authority was sufficient to increase police numbers to the level that we need. However, he may also be aware that the GLA had a debate on the Metropolitan police authority budget, following which Sir John Stevens sent a letter to Lord Harris in which he said:
"you will appreciate my concern at how difficult any further reductions beyond the full I per cent. efficiency savings now required by the GLA would be."
Is the Minister aware that Conservative GLA members have tabled an alternative budget requiring £47 million of extra efficiency savings—over and above the 1 per cent. GLA-required efficiency savings—which would require a cut in police numbers and police resources in London?
Mr. Clarke: I was not aware of that, but I never cease to be shocked by the activities of Conservatives, who try and score short-sighted political points at the expense of long-term investment. That was the story when they were in government, and it is the story now that they are in opposition. I am not surprised, therefore, by what the hon. Gentleman says. I am glad to confirm the entente cordiale—a suitable term between pro-Europeans—that exists between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on these questions.
I shall turn now to the other matters regarding the Metropolitan police that I want to deal with, so that they can all be considered in the round.
On 1 April 2000, the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district were brought into line with those of the 32 London boroughs. That important development has enhanced policing in a variety of ways. It meant that Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey took over responsibility for policing areas that were previously within the Metropolitan police district.
General adjustments to the grant distribution were made from this year, and we have taken account of transitional costs incurred last year and in 2000–01. I recognise that the three county police authorities will continue to incur transitional costs next year.
We will therefore be making special payments of grant in 2001–02, totalling £2.25 million, in recognition of the additional costs resulting from the boundary changes. Accordingly, Essex will get £14,000, Hertfordshire £627,000, and Surrey £1.609 million.
When I met the delegation of Surrey Members of Parliament earlier this week, I said that I would look at detailed submissions and representations from the Surrey police authority and the chief constable of Surrey if it was felt that the transitional costs were greater than had been allowed for in the grant.
The Government accept that the police funding formula is not sufficiently sophisticated or flexible to respond to the distinct characteristics and responsibilities of the

331
Metropolitan police. It is for that reason that the Greater London Authority receives, each year, a special payment of grant on behalf of the Metropolitan police authority in addition to that provided through the funding formula.
In recognition of the Metropolitan police authority's specific needs, the Metropolitan police special grant for 2001–02 will be increased, in line with the increase in total standard spending, from £182 million this year to £191 million. That is paid as 100 per cent. Home Office grant, and is not charged to London council tax payers.
With the establishment of the MPA in July 2000, arrangements for the policing of London have been brought more closely into line with arrangements elsewhere in England and Wales. The Metropolitan police precept is now set by the Mayor as part of the Greater London Authority budget, and is subject to the approval of the GLA.
With that, I conclude my remarks about the Metropolitan police. I shall therefore give way to any hon. Member who has a question about that.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for his courteous reception of the delegation from Surrey on Monday. I am pleased that he has put on record the Government's approach to transitional funding, and hope that he will look at extra transitional funding for the coming financial year.
Will the Minister confirm that he will also consider bids for subsequent financial years, especially for Surrey, which is assuming the lion's share of the burden relinquished by the Metropolitan police? That is especially important, given that the wider formula means that, compared to other police forces, Surrey is in a dire position.
Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that, but I reinforce the point that I made to the delegation that I met on Monday, which was led by the hon. Gentleman. The only basis for adjustment will be a clear demonstration that the transitional costs incurred by the Surrey police authority are greater than the sums allocated to meet them. The Government are not offering a type of slush-fund payment: allocations are made in relation to specific and demonstrable additional transitional costs.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I echo the thanks to the Minister expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for his courteous reception of the Surrey delegation yesterday. I was in that delegation, as was my hon. Friend and other Surrey Members of Parliament, the chief constable of Surrey and the chairman of the Surrey police authority.
However, will the Minister repeat for the record another thing that he was helpful enough to tell the delegation on Monday—that he is prepared to look at the specific issue of the additional costs falling on Surrey police as a result of the house arrest of Senator Pinochet? As he knows, the chief constable has estimated those additional costs at £1.2 million, of which the Government have repaid only £200,000. The Minister will recall that in a written answer he estimated those costs to be £750,000 in total. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at those figures since Monday? Can he now confirm the chief constable's estimate?
332
Finally, will the Minister confirm that he will look again at the fact that Surrey will get only £11,000 for rural crime fighting? As he said, that is far too little.
Mr. Clarke: I will deal with rural issues in a moment. I confirm that I said that I would look at the additional costs that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to do so since the delegation, as I have been detained on business in the House. I will look at the issue, but I say to the House what I said to the delegation—the fact that I am saying that I will look at something is not a guarantee that I will agree it.
I announced on 15 June 2000 that the Home Secretary was to make available £15 million from the budget for the remainder of 2000–01 to enhance the policing service in rural areas. Financial provision for future years is now included in the spending review 2000 settlement. Forces policing sparsely populated areas will receive a further £30 million in 2001–02 and in the following two years. The money has been directed towards areas of greater sparsity—31 forces gain from the rural policing fund.
I have listened to widespread expressions of concern about the problems of rural policing, and I want to see concrete benefits from the allocation. The police authorities that receive funding under this scheme will need to show, in their best value performance plans, how they will use this money to improve policing in rural areas. I look forward to police forces using these funds imaginatively.
Two forces have made representations to me about being harshly treated in the allocation. The Northumbria police authority is in the unusual position of having a very sparsely populated part of its area—one of the sparsest in the country—side by side with a very densely populated area. The way the statistics worked out, the Northumbria force did not gain, as it might have hoped, from the allocation. I have said to the chief constable and the chair of the police authority that I am prepared to look at specific bids they might wish to make under targeted policing to deal with some of those aspects in the rural areas. I said exactly the same to the delegation from Surrey, which received £11,000 from the system—not an immense amount of money. It has a case for some of the areas.
Mr. Steve Webb: The Avon and Somerset force polices some sparsely populated areas. It was not among the forces the Minister listed earlier whose numbers had gone up. However, violent crime has risen remorselessly in Avon and Somerset, not just in the past three years but in the past 20. Does the hon. Gentleman realistically expect that anything in this document is enough to result in the figures for violent crime going down in the next 12 months, as we all want?
Mr. Clarke: I believe that the allocations will make a difference on violent crime. I hope that the Avon and Somerset force will, over the next 12 months, have more officers than there were in March 1997.
The issues of violent crime are much more substantial than simply police numbers. Violent crime—a term that covers a wide variety of types of crime from the exceptionally serious to the not so serious—is the single biggest problem that we have in the areas of policing and crime reduction for which I am responsible. That is why

333
the Government have published an action plan and why the police forces are giving great attention to it. It covers a wide range of issues, including dealing with alcohol, the relationship between the police and schools and how we use DNA technology as a deterrent and as a way of giving people greater confidence in the detection of violent crime. Police presence has something to do with it, as implied by the hon. Member for Northavon, but by no means everything. There needs to be an overall approach.
Mr. David Heath: On the Avon and Somerset force, is there not a specific problem when a force covers a large area that is mixed in character, including the inner-city areas of Bristol and rural parts of Somerset? Is not the formula disadvantageous to a non-homogenous police force area which tends to lose out according to almost every criterion?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will be shocked to hear that I have received representations from just about every police authority in the country. They all argue that they lose out because they are homogenous-urban, homogenous-rural or not homogenous. They all say that they are the losers, come what may. To be fair, all that I can say is that there is weight in the hon. Gentleman's argument, as there is in those put to me by many other hon. Members.
Mr. David Kidney: May I say how pleased I was when the Staffordshire police qualified for some of the funding for policing rural areas? They have already announced that they will restore beats in rural areas. They have even announced the completion of a mobile police station, which can be taken to rural locations, which is an innovative development. I heard my hon. Friend say that he would monitor the use of the money in future. Does that mean that those forces that use it well will receive more, and those that use it badly, less?
Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that we are monitoring the use of the money and we expect it to be well used. As yet, we have not established a system whereby performance drives the allocation of money as my hon. Friend implies. Through the targeted crime initiatives, we hope to establish what works. When people ask for funding for something that has been demonstrated to work, they will have a stronger case. There may come a time when we achieve the world that my hon. Friend, as a member of the Treasury Committee, seeks to achieve in everything that he does, but we are not there yet.
I was glad that in Avon and Somerset, to which hon. Members referred, there was a reduction in crime in the year to September 2000 of 2.5 per cent., which is far better that the national average of 0.2 per cent. Violent crime increased, but crime as a whole decreased.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister said, an announcement was made about the sparsity element, which was most welcome. There is a crisis in policing in Wales. For the third year running, expenditure on the police forces in Wales has been cut. It was 4.93 per cent. of the budget in 1997–98, 4.92 per cent. in the following year and 4.89 per cent. last year. The North Wales police say that they are not hard done by, as they are getting the average increase, but even taking that into account, given their pension and pay
334
commitments, funding is at a standstill. Therefore, the settlement is not good for Welsh police forces. As no other Member of Parliament for Wales is present in the Chamber I thought I had better raise that matter.
Mr. Clarke: The Welsh police forces have a unique record, I think. I have here the statistics for each region and I see that in the period between March 1997 and 1 September 2000—since the beginning of this Parliament—the number of police officers in Dyfed-Powys increased by 40, in Gwent it increased by 28, in north Wales, which is the hon. Gentleman's area, by 24 and in south Wales by 53. That is an increase in every force area. That does not solve the problem—as I am always pointing out, police numbers are not the only issue.
However, good progress has been made and that is no doubt one reason why crime in Wales reduced by 10.3 per cent. in the last year for which figures were recorded. That is a good performance and I pay tribute to the forces in Wales for what they are doing. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's argument that more needs to be done. The North Wales force has been particularly creative in its approach to tackling rural policing positively.
We have made available an extra £500 million, including capital provision, over three years to meet the costs of Airwave—the modern radio communication system for the police. It will provide the police with more reliable, better quality radio and data communications. Airwave will give officers fast, secure, digital communications and access to local and national databases.
Payments in each of the three years will be concentrated on police authorities as they take up the system. The alternative would have been to spread the support more thinly across all forces every year. After consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, I decided that a focused funding arrangement would be more helpful to forces meeting the initial costs of Airwave roll-out. The core service charges for Airwave will be met centrally.
The DNA expansion programme has important implications for violent crime. We are committing £143 million in new money over the spending review years to the DNA project. That is in addition to up to £17 million a year in 2000–01 and 2001–02 in grants to police authorities. It will enable us to expand the national DNA database to hold the DNA profiles of the whole of the active criminal population by 2004. It will also provide support to enable forces to visit more scenes of crime, and to collect and process evidence from the increasing number of DNA matches of crimes to offenders. I hope shortly to announce details of the initial funding allocation to police authorities.
I emphasise that I can think of no more effective way of deterring crime than guaranteeing to potential criminals that if they commit their crime they will be caught by the use of DNA technology. During my time as a Minister, one of the more exciting developments that I see when I visit different forces is their ability to solve vicious, bad crimes—murders and rapes—dating from as long as 10 years before, through the availability of that technology. The more it is clear to criminals that their

335
crime will be solved and that they will be punished, the better our chances will be. I attach great importance to that particular investment.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: When I talk to my constituents, the majority of them are delighted that the Government are taking that course. They think that it is common sense to use such information to solve crime. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens, he will press on with the programme, despite some of the opposition that we have heard?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He is absolutely right. The concrete results achieved produce a much more unfriendly environment for the potential criminal. That is why the Government are giving that investment such a high priority.
For all those projects, specific payments will continue to be made for all three years of the spending review period. They are key programmes.
In November, when we announced the provisional funding settlement, details of the specific payments were given at the same time. It is the Government's intention to continue that arrangement next year and also to include details of capital and the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service levies. Instead of announcements dribbling out over time, everyone will know exactly where they stand.
Mr. David Heath: Although the capital spends this year are extremely welcome, there is still the problem that national programmes are displacing much-needed essential maintenance and work on the backlog of repairs in forces. Can the Minister persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends of the crying need to release the accumulated capital receipts and to allow them to be used for the purposes for which they were raised from local taxpayers and ratepayers—to fight crime effectively?
Mr. Clarke: That is a fair point and I shall consider it. Although capital expenditure is not part of the grant report, for this year we have been able to raise the sum for capital grant and supplementary credit approvals from £144.3 million to £157.3 million, after several years during which the total remained unchanged. In addition, £75 million will be allocated to those forces taking Airwave; and all police authorities and forces are being encouraged to explore the scope for private finance initiative projects. However, I shall look into the point about capital receipts made by the hon. Gentleman. It would be helpful if he could write to me about the ways in which his force might use such resources; I should be happy to consider that.
We are introducing other funding initiatives. We are providing for a basic command unit fund to support and encourage programmes to prevent crime and fear of crime at the level closest to the general public. An important part of our policy is to strengthen the basic command unit aspect. Details of the scheme will be developed and will be published later this year. Provision has also been made for assistance to police authorities in London and the south-east towards the cost of the pay lead necessary to recruit and retain officers. That point relates to our earlier discussions.
336
The settlement takes into account the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to improve efficiency for which we set a year-on-year target of 2 per cent. for each year between 1999 and 2002. The inspectorate assessed all 43 police authorities and forces as having delivered the 2 per cent. efficiency gains; they are on line to deliver further efficiency gains of 2 per cent. The total value was more than £183 million—a serious amount. We believe that efficiency gains will total at least £440 million over the three-year period. I congratulate all the forces on the commitment that they made to achieve those improvements in sometimes difficult circumstances.
On next year's funding settlement, we continue to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help planning, so we have proposed no changes to the method of police grant distribution. There will thus be no substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year. Data have been updated as usual. That has had an effect on grant distribution between police authority areas.
Mr. Blunt: When will the results of the 2001 census come into the formula?
Mr. Clarke: The short answer to that question, which I put articulately and effectively, is that I do not know. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not for the police. We are merely subjects of DETR in our police operations at the Home Office.
The main issues that emerged from the consultation and the representations that were received were the implications of ring-fenced funding, the proposed levies for the NCS and the NCIS, the problems of rural policing, the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula, the costs of Airwave and the costs of police pensions.
I have addressed the issues of ring-fenced funding. We believe that it is important that these funds are targeted more specifically to achieve results—to recruit more police officers, establish the DNA database and so on. I shall not devote more time to that point.
I hope that it will be possible to build on the successes that we have taken forward. The whole settlement is concentrated on improving the policing service on the ground; most of the funds will, as in the past, reach police authorities.
Throughout the country there was a great deal of what I can only describe as scaremongering about the NCS and NCIS levies. I attach great importance to funding the NCS and the NCIS at the proper levels. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took careful account of the comments made, and the increases in the NCS and NCIS levies, which when added together amount to 10 per cent. of the 2000/01 levy in cash terms, achieve a balance. The increase for the NCS was broadly in line with the average spending increases across the country. The increase for the NCIS was significantly greater, because we need to commit to intelligence-led policing in a variety of ways. The system of funding the NCS and the NCIS is under review and there is legislation before the House on the matter at the moment; we debated its Second Reading yesterday.
I have discussed rural policing.

337
I have been asked to complete the removal of the police establishments element from the formula. Police establishment levels were originally included to provide stability and continuity. The Government have always intended that those historic manpower levels should be part of the formula on a temporary basis, and should be removed at whatever rate proves compatible with the need for stability. It remains our intention in due course to wind up that part of the formula, which has been progressively reduced from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. of overall funding, but in the interests of stability we are making no formula changes for next year.
Pensions are a real cause of grievance in many parts of the country. The arrangements whereby pension costs form part of each police authority's budget are long-standing. There are some advantages, but overall there is no doubt that rising costs are a matter of concern to the police service. We are still working on proposals for a new pension scheme for new entrants that will be less expensive for officers and police authorities alike. There will need to be further consultation on that in due course, as part of our long-term strategy.
I take a particular interest in these issues and have discovered for myself how difficult they are. I have joined colleagues in the Treasury in asking officials to provide an assessment of the various alternative ways of providing the finance for police and fire pensions. The options considered will range from establishing fully funded schemes to changing the way in which expenditure on police and fire pensions is presented in the accounts. My officials have been asked to take account of the views of police and fire authorities and other key stakeholders. I expect a report on the alternatives to be ready by the spring.
In conclusion, the Government are determined to reduce crime, to lessen fear of crime and to see more police officers back on the beat. The signs are that that is starting to happen. I will not join in the party political arguments that we sometimes have on these matters, but I believe that the record of this year and of the settlement is one of which the Government can be proud, and which the police service as whole has the basis to develop into the future.
5.13 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I start, as the Minister did, by paying a tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our police force.
When I spoke in last year's counterpart of this debate, I had been shadowing the Minister for three or four hours and was just starting in my present role as Opposition spokesman. After a year, I have had an opportunity to see at first hand the work that the police are doing in their fight against crime. I have spoken to officers of all ranks, and I am more conscious of the value of that work than I was previously, although I have always been a strong supporter of the work that the police do.
Last year, I said that morale was a problem in the police service. There is no doubt that the position has worsened in the intervening 12 months. The chairman of the Police Federation, whom the Home Secretary often criticises on the subject, has said that police morale is the worst that he has ever seen. The Minister said in a parliamentary answer that a good way to judge morale was to look at
338
how many officers were leaving: resignations from the police service have increased by 60 per cent. under this Government.
I shall give a typical example of the comments that I have received. An officer recently e-mailed my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), saying:
"We used to love the job and always did everything we could to keep the wheel on the cart. Now we are taken for granted…
Morale countrywide is at all-time low not just from the remuneration situation but the constant abuse…and the sheer lack of the Home Secretary coming up with anything useful, just trite schemes that sound good if you know nothing of Policing or Criminal law.
I thank God that neither of my children have expressed any desire to join the police, and were they to do so, I would do all in my power to dissuade them."
That comment is not unique. We often hear very critical comments about what officers regard as Government complacency. They know that 200 offenders, who have been convicted of assaulting police officers, have been let out of jail on the special early release scheme. Those criminals were not fined, but sentenced to prison. On average, they have served about 30 per cent. of the sentences imposed by the courts. Such measures are devastating to police morale.
It is rather rich for the Home Secretary to say today that there is a hard core of about 100,000 criminals in the country and that the courts are at fault for not imposing heavier sentences, given that, whatever the sentence, under the early release scheme offenders are let out after serving less than half their sentence. There is a certain dishonesty about that, and if we are to address the problems of crime, we need to adopt a straightforward approach that can be understood by those who might be tempted into crime.
The police have 2,500 fewer officers and the Minister suggests that the recent one-off boost in recruitment lays a basis for the future, but all the signs show that police officers are leaving in greater numbers and that the crisis will get worse, not better. Targeting some offences, such as car crime and burglary, is a good idea, but too few officers are dealing with those manpower-intensive duties, with the effect that insufficient officers are available in our town centres to deal with violent crime and to prevent it from happening simply by their presence. There is no better way to stop trouble in a town centre than to have a strong, visible police presence.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Mr. Heald: I want to finish the point, and then the Minister can answer all my questions at the same time.
During Jonathan Dimbleby's programme on ITV on Sunday, the Home Secretary kept saying that the Government
"made no promises about the total number of police officers."
He said that they had
"said nothing at all about increasing the total number of police officers".
When the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), used to do the Minister's job, he used to say that talking about police numbers was "sterile and simplistic" and that that was not

339
the issue. Will the Minister tell us how committed the Government are to the question of the total number of police officers?
Mr. Clarke: I am very committed to it, which is why I said in response to an earlier intervention that I was confident that, five years after the Government were elected, we would have more police officers across the country than we inherited. A third of police authorities in Britain already have more of them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about violent crime and wonder whether he will join me in congratulating, for example, the Merseyside police. They have used the extra money that we have given them to deal with robbery and to raise their profile in the city centre—for example, with mounted police—precisely to inhibit the alcohol-related violent crime to which he refers.
Mr. Heald: Nobody is more prepared than I am to pay tribute to the work of officers who tackle crimes such as robbery. It is difficult to deal with such crimes effectively, and it is right that we should pay such a tribute. Anti-robbery initiatives and high-visibility policing in places such as Hillingdon have had a good effect. However, the Minister should consider whether it is good enough to have the high-visibility policing that we need only in certain areas. Should not such policing take place everywhere when it is needed? The problem is that there are just not the officers to do the job.
The Labour party pledged in its manifesto that it would
"get more officers back on the beat."
The Home Secretary now seems to be saying that there was never a promise or a pledge about an increase in police numbers. However, the Prime Minister should know and, in response to a challenge by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said that
"every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election, as we said they would be."— [Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 948.]
That is completely wrong. His words prove that there was a promise, but it will be broken just like the promise on youth justice.
Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend paints a correct and gloomy picture, but the position is worse than perhaps he realises. In Surrey, the grant is being cut in real terms after allowing for inflation. The chief constable tells us that, if something is not done over the next three years, he will have 250 fewer officers. It is not a question of a promise of more police officers being broken, because Government policy is forcing one force to cut police numbers.
Mr. Heald: The Surrey chief constable's comments no doubt apply to other forces and show that the Home Secretary and the Minister need to tackle particular problems.
Mr. Clarke: I did not intend to intervene often, but the hon. Gentleman refers to other forces. Has he had a chance to see last Friday's statement by the chief constable of North Yorkshire and the chair of his police
340
authority, who said that, in March 2002, they will have more police officers than there have ever been in North Yorkshire? I refer to that force, because it covers the constituency of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
Mr. Heald: The Minister must accept that taking one isolated example does not mean that one has won the argument. I know that he has not had updated projections from many forces, but the projections for wastage that were made earlier this year show that, by halfway through the year, many forces had much more than half the wastage that had been projected. We know that the Metropolitan police has had to revise its figures upwards by 25 per cent, and that resignations have increased by 60 per cent. since the general election. There is nothing to be complacent about.
My point about the Prime Minister was that he admitted both that there had been a promise to get officers back on the beat and that his promise was to increase police numbers. By the time of the next general election—assuming that it is this year, as everyone expects—there will not only be 2,500 fewer officers, but 6,300 fewer specials. This is an example of the spin that the public are getting sick of—all spin, no delivery.
On the details of the settlement, there is certainly more money this year than there was last year in terms of the rate of increase. Last year, the Opposition voted against the increase, because it simply was not enough. It is true that we also made that criticism in earlier years. The position is a bit better this year—
Mr. Wilshire: Not in Surrey.
Mr. Heald: But not in Surrey, as my hon. Friend says. Although the position is a bit better this year, it is sad that the year in which the increase comes is an election year. What happens after that? The real-terms increases are 3.5 per cent. for next year and 0.6 per cent. for the following year. The Minister must put this year's settlement in context.
Mr. Blunt: Bearing in mind that the largest increase has been made in an election year, my hon. Friend might want to note that the three police forces whose areas are represented entirely by Conservative Members—the City of London, Surrey and Dorset forces—have, for some reason, received the lowest increase in the country.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which reminds me of another issue. The Minister speaks a great deal about the crime fighting fund, but he fails to remember that many forces have found it impossible to recruit more officers. If a force does not recruit, it does not get the money. In respect of the forces in Hertfordshire, the City of London and another area, not one single crime fighting fund officer has been recruited, although 118 places were allocated.
Mr. Edward Davey: I am disturbed that Conservative Front Benchers are happy with the Government's grant for the police. Will the hon. Gentleman support the police grant report on that basis? The Metropolitan police have had to recruit and train 2,000 officers in order to recruit a net increase of 1,050 officers next year. That will require a 16 per cent. increase in the precept from the Greater

341
London Authority. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his Conservative colleagues on the GLA proposed a 4 per cent. precept? Are the Conservatives in favour of police cuts in London?
Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I was thinking of the circumstances in London. He suggested that it was as easy as anything to recruit, but the crime fighting fund allocated some 115 places that remain unfilled. In the past two or three years, the Government's impact on police morale has made recruitment very difficult. The ability to recruit police will not be regained until morale is improved, which means having the will to support the police and not to take the easy options.
The Minister referred to a 7.4 per cent. overall settlement. However, in terms of actual police allocation, the budgets are set to increase by about 5 per cent. Public Finance magazine states:
"Police authorities are warning of a tight year ahead".
It points out that
"police forces face increased costs of 5.6 per cent just to keep their heads above water".
He mentioned Northumbria, but the chief constable of Cumbria says that his force will face cuts again this year.
Will the Minister comment on the likely rise in police authority council tax precepts, which is a matter of concern to the Association of Police Authorities? He mentioned best value, but is not that concept creating huge bureaucracy? The chief constable of Lincolnshire makes this complaint:
"In my force Best Value bureaucracy is costing over £400,000 a year…and we are in danger of sinking under a sea of targets and measures."
How does the Minister intend to reform best value so that it is not merely a charter for bureaucracy and red tape?
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to the three forces—Essex, Hertfordshire and the City of London—that will not receive one single officer as a result of the crime fighting fund. Will the Minister give some assurances about the ability of those forces and others to meet the continuation criteria that will allow them to access the funding next year? Have all forces met those criteria?
The Association of Police Authorities refers to the
"bureaucracy and difficulty in accessing the various pockets of funding now held by the Home Office".
What does the Minister have to say about that? The APA also expresses concern about the mounting pensions bill. Just now, the Minister said a few words about addressing that issue. Last year, he said:
"Pensions were mentioned by many hon. Members, who made legitimate points. That issue is difficult to deal with across government, not only in the police. As has been suggested, we need to sort it out."
He went on to say that
"it has not yet been fully addressed, and it needs to be dealt with."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1261.]
At the Police Federation conference, the Home Secretary said that the Government were
"working on proposals for reform"
and that
"no serving officer will see his or her pension entitlement reduced."
342
It seems that, a year on, nothing has happened. Does the Minister have proposals on that issue, or is he planning to kick it into the long grass?
Mr. Kidney: Staffordshire has the money for recruits and the applicants to recruit, but the big obstacle is the huge proportion of the base budget that is spent on pensions. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government have any proposals; is he suggesting that the Conservatives would remove some of that burden from authorities such as Staffordshire?
Mr. Heald: Clearly, pensions are an ever larger part of the budget. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that pensions took up about 7 per cent. of the budget in 1990, and now take up about 14 per cent. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the Minister's indication that I am about right. Those figures are for the national average; the proportion may be higher in Staffordshire.
One of the reasons for that trend is falling police numbers. In a "pay as you go" scheme, the effect of having fewer contributors—we have 2,500 fewer—is that less money goes into the scheme and less comes out. There is a case for seeing what the effect would be if police numbers were restored and if police officers wanted to continue their careers for longer. That could contribute to a solution. I agree that we must consider those issues. The Government have access to actuaries and other experts who could tease out more detail. It is about time that the Government took action or explained their thinking in more detail.
Before the last general election, police capital was an important issue. This year, too, the APA has said that it is concerned about capital expenditure, saying that it
"is still over 30 per cent. lower than in 1995–96"—
under the Conservatives. At that time, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said:
"It is fine for Ministers to say that they will provide extra money for police officers, but, if they keep cutting the capital budget every year, how on earth is the force expected to keep up with increased expenditure on more police, uniforms and police cars…?"—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 464.]
Given that the Minister and his colleagues were complaining at a time when capital expenditure was 30 per cent. higher than it is now, will he explain what he will do about capital expenditure, or is this another case of complacency?
Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a powerful speech on rural policing and the difficulties that Cumbria faces. I have referred to the remarks of the chief constable of Cumbria. It is time that the Minister gave a more detailed answer about what he will do to help rural areas such as Cumbria.
The Government have promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but instead they have been tough on the crime fighters. The test for the Government is whether the funding settlement will better enable the police forces of England and Wales to fight crime. The key to that is whether the Minister can tell us that there will be less bureaucracy and red tape and a more positive approach. There must be a serious effort to achieve the visible policing that we all want.

343
Many people would say that, so far, the Government have been complacent and have not taken the right approach to law and order. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not prepared to have a television debate during a general election campaign in which these issues could be teased out and in which he would be seriously challenged to explain why, when he promised that there would be rising police numbers, those numbers have not risen: he is frit.
5.34 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I want to be brief because I know that other Members want to speak. I thought that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening this important debate was, as usual, of a very high standard. He outlined some of the difficulties and challenges that face the Government, as well as some of the measures that they are taking to solve problems.
I want to pay tribute to the work of Nottinghamshire police and the police authority chairman, Councillor John Clarke. The police authority, along with Nottinghamshire police, were pleased to receive a grant increase this year of 4.7 per cent., which will enable them to continue the work that they have been doing to tackle crime in the county.
Since 1997, recorded crime in Nottinghamshire has decreased by 9.9 per cent. It is worth emphasising that figure. Although there are problems, as we have heard, with violent crime and other crimes that we all deplore, real successes are being achieved through our crime-fighting initiatives.
We know that police morale may sometimes be under strain. As well as confronting the police with problems that they must deal with, we ought to congratulate them on their success in tackling certain types of crime. Considerable success has been achieved in respect of domestic burglary and car crime, and through changes to police practices and procedures for dealing with domestic violence. If we spoke about such successes, as well as the challenges that still face the police, there would be fewer problems of low morale and feelings of not being valued.
There has been a problem with police numbers. No one is disguising the fact that police numbers have fallen. In my constituency and in Nottinghamshire generally, they have fallen, but with the money that the Government have made available, particularly through the crime fighting fund, we can see that that is changing. The latest figures that I have show that in the six months from 31 March 2000 to 30 September 2000, Nottinghamshire police numbers increased by the full-time equivalent of 28.
A report to Gedling borough council's crime prevention committee showed that up to March 2002, in the divisions that cover my constituency, there will be an increase of some 60 officers. My constituents will be pleased because, as my hon. Friend the Minister and others have said, people want to see police on the street to tackle some of the problems that they see.
It is incumbent on us all, however, to support our chief constables when they say that putting police on the street is not the only way to deal with the problems that they
344
face. Although we all like to see police walking down the street, it is targeted policing and police intelligence that reduce crime.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He takes a serious interest in these matters, as I know from debates in Westminster Hall. Does he recognise that chief constables throughout the country are telling his Government's Ministers that it is ridiculous for an organisation to have 58 performance targets? Any serious business organisation would have no more than three targets, and preferably only one. How can the hon. Gentleman urge the House to support chief constables, when his Government are not listening to chief constables asking them to scrap the monstrous 58 performance targets?
Mr. Coaker: My interpretation of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister is that he is listening to chief constables and doing what he can to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. My point was that chief constables often have a difficult task in persuading members of the public that having a policeman or policewoman walking down the street may not be the most effective use of police time, and that the best way of tackling crime is often through police intelligence.
There is a conflict between the need to have police officers walking down the street, thereby reducing the fear of crime, and the more effective use of resources to bring crime statistics down. That is a difficult choice for our chief constables and local area commanders.
Painting a gloomy picture of the situation does not help police There are problems with police numbers, as the Government have acknowledged through establishing the crime fighting fund to increase the number of recruits and get more police on the street.
Violent crime presents challenges. No one wants violent crime, and we acknowledge that it has increased. However, we should recognise successes in tackling other forms of crime. Targeted policing, work on improving police morale and tackling the fear of crime will lead to a reduction in violent crime. Although I do not have the latest figures, I understand that they show that violent crime has decreased in some parts of the country.
Of course, police numbers, prison sentences and locking more people up are important. However, those measures alone will not reduce crime. Several hon. Members have mentioned the need to tackle the causes of crime. We should also take account of the police grant. If we do not tackle social exclusion, poor housing and other general problems in society, it will be difficult to win the battle against crime.
Mr. Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that community penalties can be as effective as locking up?
Mr. Coaker: That is a good point. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the public do not perceive community penalties as a soft option, which is the current view. However, they are a genuine alternative to prison. We lock up more people now than ever, but do we feel safer on the streets? The answer is probably no.
Let us talk up our police and remember that they have achieved significant successes in tackling a wide range of crimes. That applies to my constituency in

345
Nottinghamshire as well as throughout the country. If we talk about the successes of the police as well as the challenges that remain, we will do much to increase the morale of police forces throughout the country.
5.41 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) spoke a lot of sense. I join him and others in paying tribute to the police. We must talk up the police and their work, and we must talk up policing as a career and as a job that the country needs doing.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there is no simple connection between police numbers and crime clear-up rates. However, I want to begin by giving an example that is linked to the debate. I have come to the House almost directly from the funeral of someone who was hacked to death nearly 14 months ago by three people—now convicted—in a flat in my constituency. He left a widow and six children; the youngest was under five. At the funeral service in Bermondsey, the widow and the family paid tribute to the police, whose dedication meant that, although they were unable to prevent the crime—it was probably immediately unpreventable because the perpetrators were so evil—they ultimately also found the pieces of the body, which had been buried. That at least allowed a funeral to take place and the family to start the next process in their lives.
Such debates are not just about numbers and budgets but about ensuring that there are adequate forces in our society to deter people more from committing crimes—and that when crimes are committed, we catch the perpetrators. That is where the police come in. Our clear-up rate for the crimes listed in the British crime survey is only 3 per cent. Our electors want us to do much better, so our police service must be adequate to the task.
I welcomed the statement on the comprehensive spending review made some months ago and the considerably greater allocation to the police for next year than for the past three years. It is a definite improvement. However, when my colleagues and I vote on the budget grant that has been proposed today, we must consider whether it is enough for the coming year.
Mr. Charles Clarke: It is never enough.
Mr. Hughes: I accept also that the Government would like to do more. However, as an opposition party, we must decide whether the allocation is enough for next year in the light of the evidence of the past three years. We have formed the view that it is not. That is not simply a subjective, party-political view; it also reflects advice from the Association of Police Authorities and others. That is why we will vote against the motion. If it is defeated, the Government will have to present a proposal for more money. That will not mean that there is no money for the police; it will mean that the police settlement has not found favour with the House. That is the way in which Opposition parties have to register their concern about the service.
I find it surprising that, when it comes to voting on the proposed budget that pays for the coppers to go out on the beat, the Conservative party—which, most of the week, is full of sound and fury about the issue—is going to vote in a way which says that it is happy with what the
346
Government have proposed. If the Conservatives were logical, from today on, they would stop their ranting and raving and realise that they are taking an inconsistent position. I am sad that they have bottled out just when they were expected to put their votes where their voices so loudly were.
Mr. Wilshire: Some may do so.
Mr. Hughes: To his credit, the hon. Gentleman said earlier that some Conservatives might have to register their discontent with the settlement for their counties—Surrey, in the hon. Gentleman's case—by not supporting the motion. I pay tribute to those hon. Members who do that.
Like the Minister, my colleagues and I are angry and frustrated that, through no fault of the Government or the Liberal Democrats, we have only one and a half hours for this debate. The person who objected and caused that to happen is not even here to take part. That is particularly galling. I shall be as quick as I can: I just want to make a few points on the issues that the Minister properly put before the House.
First, some parts of the country still have a very low number of police officers per head of the population. There are 43 police forces in England and Wales, some of which have fewer than 180 officers per 100,000 people. The two forces with the lowest ratios are West Mercia and Suffolk. They have little else in common: one is a partly built-up area, the other is very rural. Police numbers in the forces in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Thames Valley and Warwickshire are all below the ratio of 180 officers per 100,000 people. People in those areas have always said to me that they want an increased police presence. One of the tests, for us, is whether there are enough police on the ground across the country. In many parts of the country, the answer is no, there are not.
Mr. Edward Davey: While my hon. Friend is dealing with per capita comparisons, is he aware that comparable capital cities such as Paris and New York have far higher numbers—calculated on a per capita basis—of police officers than London? Paris has twice as many officers as London, although its population is a similar size. Does my hon. Friend not regret that, under successive Conservative and Labour Governments over the past 10 years, the numbers in the Metropolitan police have fallen?
Mr. Hughes: I do regret that. My hon. Friend—who now speaks on London matters for the Liberal Democrats, having taken over from me—has exactly the same concern in his outer London borough and constituency as I have in my inner London borough and constituency. The police in my constituency, currently coping with cases such as the Damilola Taylor murder inquiry, tell me that their numbers are down. The new Commissioner, like his predecessor, makes that case, and wants to speak to the Greater London Authority, to make the point that the police need more resources so that he can deliver what the public expect of the Metropolitan police.
There have been significant reductions in police numbers. I shall not elaborate on this in great detail, but I want to illustrate the point. In London, the figures for

347
the Metropolitan police have fallen from a little more than 26,500 in March 1997 to a little more than 24,500 in September 2000—the last date for which figures are available. That decrease in numbers will not deliver the policing that the public want.
The lists of police numbers have been published, and I have selected these statistics from ministerial answers, each for five police forces which have had a fall in numbers during the period that I mention. Sixteen forces have experienced falls in police numbers during the last six months for which figures are available, including Cumbria, Essex, the Metropolitan police, Suffolk and North Wales. There are 23 forces that have had a fall in the last year for which we have figures. They include Avon and Somerset—my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) intervened earlier on that subject—Dyfed-Powys, Greater Manchester, Sussex and Thames Valley. Twenty-eight forces out of the 43 have had a fall in numbers since the previous election. In addition to others I have mentioned, they include Cleveland, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Norfolk and Hampshire.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman place on record his acknowledgement that, over the six months to September last year, there was an increase of 444 officers across the country? I accept the ups and downs that he has described, but does he accept that police numbers are now going up?
Mr. Hughes: Of course I do, and the Minister knows it. He will remember that the figures were corrected on about 23 December. They at last begin to show that, from a very low base represented by a drop of thousands, numbers are beginning to climb.
There is another general point about numbers. I asked a direct question and the Home Secretary gave me an answer, which was that a reduction was expected in four forces next year—Humberside, Merseyside, the Met and West Yorkshire. Is a reduction in those forces still expected? [Interruption.] The Minister, in all honesty and perfectly acceptably, says that he does not know the answer. One reason why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the proposed settlement is that it does not even guarantee that in every force there will be an increase in the coming year. We have a duty to ensure that there is growth—not only in our constituencies, but in all places in England and Wales.
Mr. Clarke: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by guarantee in that context? Is he saying that we should take back the power for the Home Secretary to determine police numbers in every force in the country?
Mr. Hughes: The Minister and I have had that debate before. The Government came to office saying that it was up to police forces to decide police numbers, but changed that view by allocating ring-fenced money so that more officers could be recruited. I keep asking whether there will be more officers at the next election—nationally or locally in each police force area—than there were at the previous one. That now seems highly unlikely, which is another reason why we shall vote against the allocation. This budget grant is unlikely to change that. The Government came to office saying that there would be
348
more bobbies on the beat. That failure represents a failure to meet the promise that they made not to me alone, but to all our electors who want crime to fall and the number of police to increase.
It is obvious that not enough money has been provided, if we consider the figures for precepts likely to be levied by police authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has given me the projected figures for the south-west. The increase for Avon and Somerset is likely to be 7.5 per cent., with 5 per cent. for Devon and Cornwall, 9.7 per cent. for Dorset, 6 per cent. for Gloucestershire and 9.6 per cent. for Wiltshire. Those police authorities are having to add to the money that the Government give.
In London, the Mayor wanted a precept of 31 per cent. My colleagues wanted between 16 and 21 per cent. The Commissioner seems to want a similar figure. Bizarrely, the Tories seem to think that we can get away with 5 per cent., which no one else has been able to justify. Such a figure is entirely inconsistent with all their ranting and raving.
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend refers to the expected 7.5 per cent. precept increase for Avon and Somerset. A large component of that increase is down to changes in the area cost adjustment and the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, which rubs salt in the wound. They do not pay for more police officers or better crime fighting, but simply apply the Government's formulae for the purposes of the rest of the country.
Mr. Hughes: Absolutely. A range of similar issues should also have been sorted out after nearly four years of Labour government. One example is the urban-rural mix, which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and acknowledged by the Minister. Forces such as Northumbria and Avon and Somerset, which police city and rural communities, clearly have an averaging out that does not reflect either their sparsity or the intensity of inner-city areas.
Furthermore, 14 per cent. of what we give to police forces is taken back to be spent on pensions for retired coppers, although a proposal for change seems to be on the table. That is a difficult issue, but I tabled a written question to the Minister almost a year ago to ask when he would tell us what he would do about police pensions. The answer was:
"I hope to publish specific proposals in the spring."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 50W.]
That meant spring 2000, but spring 2001 is almost here. So far, there ain't nothing to see. That is a big issue and another reason why we must be dissatisfied on behalf of police authorities.
There is another difficult issue. Police forces are still rewarded for failure, not success. If crime figures decrease, forces are likely to get less money, not more. That is unsatisfactory. In addition, answers have not been provided to the difficult allowances questions. The Met has had an additional allowance. The Tories, of course, made a complete hash of allowances through the implementation of the Sheehy report, which completely ruined Met recruitment. The Government have sought to correct that and, on behalf of people in London, I am grateful to them. The home counties and counties such as

349
Hampshire, however, about which my hon. Friends keep asking questions, also have high living costs, but do not pay the allowance that would enable them to hold on to officers and recruit the police they need.
Although I hope that the Minister will make an announcement soon, there is still no funding package to keep officers on at the end of their 30 years' service or to bring recently retired officers back. We still have not had any correct and full answer in explanation of the fact that the Home Office allocation across the next three years is 6.4 per cent. but the police allocation less than 4 per cent. Even if extras such as forensic science are included, the police figure will still not reach the Home Office average. If policing is so important, why does it not receive as great an increase as the Home Office in general? When will there be the review of the police funding formula for which police authorities around the country have been asking for about 10 years? The formula does not manage to allocate money in the way that the authorities want.
Is not that litany reason enough to vote against the settlement? if not, there is no reason to do so. I am grateful that the Government have at last realised how important the public consider adequate funding of our police to be, but, as some of us said before the election and have said every year since and although the settlement is more generous than in previous years, thank God, it does not make up for the fact that the blue line has been stretched to breaking point. Every time the police are stretched to breaking point, they become less likely to deter, less likely to detect and less likely to bring crime figures down, and it is that which all our electors want.
5.56 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I shall do my level best to precis my long and beautifully honed speech into the four or five minutes available. Luckily, a lot of the points that need making about the settlement as it affects my county of Surrey have been made.
The settlement for Surrey shows once again that the Government's claims are hollow—they are simply spin. The truth, at least in my county, is not as the Government claim. The truth in Surrey is simple. After allowing for inflation, there will be a 2.8 per cent. cut—not increase—in the money that Surrey receives. If that is translated straightforwardly, without other changes being made, that represents a £4 million cut over the next three years. If we cannot find other ways to handle that, it will equate to 250 fewer police officers available to fight crime in Surrey.
The truth of Labour government in my part of the world is not what the Government say through their spin. The truth is simply that Labour government in Surrey means less money for the police and fewer police officers. In fairness to the Minister, I do not blame him for that. The villains of that sorry saga are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I most certainly blame, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which administers the absolutely absurd standard spending assessment system. The Minister has no choice but to work within the constraints that are forced on him.
Indeed, the Minister has been kind enough to acknowledge that Surrey has a problem. In fact, he has gone further by undertaking to consider whether he can accept at least some of the suggestions made by Surrey MPs when we saw him a day or two ago. It would be
350
churlish not to place on record the thanks of all Surrey MPs for the hon. Gentleman's kindness and the positive way in which he listened to us.
The "my constituency is being treated unfairly" theme is common in the House. Sometimes it is a soundbite; sometimes it is true. I would argue that in this case it is true. In absolute terms, Surrey's grant will increase next year by 0.2 per cent, which is why, after taking account of inflation, there will be a cut. Surrounding forces will receive an average increase of 5 per cent. or perhaps more. That is unfair, and there are other examples: the grant, considered by head of population, has fallen in Surrey for four years in a row.
There is another theme that rumbles around the House—the "things are different in my constituency" theme. However, in this case, things really are different in Surrey. Again, let me be fair to the Minister. He was good enough to acknowledge that the police boundary change that has moved the whole of my constituency, and other areas, from the Metropolitan police district to the Surrey district has produced turmoil and cost.
Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
Mr. Wilshire: I have no time to give way.
In the context of turmoil, the Minister referred to 500 officer movements. The Government have tried to help, and I thank them for that. Indeed, I am doubly grateful, because the Minister said he would give careful consideration to the information that the chief constable had promised to send him. The hon. Gentleman also kindly said that he would consider the General Pinochet case again. That cost us £1.2 million, although it was not our choice to put the general under house arrest in Surrey: the matter was a national issue for which we had to pick up the bill.
We in Surrey are being treated unfairly. Ours are special circumstances: we are different. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that. The reality in Surrey is the opposite of the Government's claim: it is "less money, fewer police officers." I repeat, however, that this is not the Minister's fault. He is trying very hard to help. Indeed, I suggest—to ruin his career—that he is too nice to be a Labour Minister. Let me end by urging the hon. Gentleman—in order to enhance the reputation that he has gained with Surrey's MPs—to think about what we said to him, look back on the proposals that we made, accept that they are reasonable and sensible, and agree with them.
6.1 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have two questions. First, why is less being spent per head on policing in Wales than in England? In 1999–2000, England received £140.39 while Wales received £125.49. In the current year, England has received £147 and Wales £132. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (1)
The House divided: Ayes 309,Noes49.

Division No. 95]

[6.2 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cummings, John

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Ainger, Nick

(Copeland)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Allen, Graham

Dalyell, Tam

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Darvill, Keith

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Atkins, Charlotte

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Austin, John

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Bailey, Adrian

(B'ham Hodge H)

Banks, Tony

Dismore, Andrew

Barnes, Harry

Dobbin, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Beard, Nigel

Doran, Frank

Begg, Miss Anne

Dowd, Jim

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Drew, David

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Drown, Ms Julia

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bennett, Andrew F

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Benton, Joe

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bermingham, Gerald

Edwards, Huw

Best, Harold

Efford, Clive

Betts, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blackman, Liz

Ennis, Jeff

Blears, Ms Hazel

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Blizzard, Bob

Fisher, Mark

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Borrow, David

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradshaw, Ben

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fyfe, Maria

Browne, Desmond

Galloway, George

Buck, Ms Karen

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Burden, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Burgon, Colin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyih V)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Caton, Martin

Grocott, Bruce

Cawsey, Ian

Grogan, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hain, Peter

Church, Ms Judith

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr Lynda

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hanson, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Healey, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clelland, David

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann

Hesford, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Hill, Keith

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Cohen, Harry

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Coleman, Iain

Hood, Jimmy

Colman, Tony

Hope, Phil

Connarty, Michael

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corston, Jean

Howells, Dr Kim

Cousins, Jim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Hutton, John

352

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

lllsley, Eric

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jenkins, Brian

Olner, Bill

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

O'Neill, Martin

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Organ, Mrs Diana

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Ms Jenny

Pickthall, Colin

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Marryn (Clwyd S)

Pope, Greg

Joyce, Eric

Pound, Stephen

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Powell, Sir Raymond

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kidney, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Kilfoyle, Peter

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Rammell, Bill

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Lammy, David

Raynsford, Nick

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Robertson, John

Laxton, Bob

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Lepper, David

Rogers, Allan

Leslie, Christopher

Rooney, Terry

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Uoyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rowlands, Ted

Lock, David

Roy, Frank

Love, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Salter, Martin

Macdonald, Calum

Savidge, Malcolm

McDonnell, John

Sawford, Phil

McFall, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Shaw, Jonathan

McIsaac, Shona

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Shipley, Ms Debra

McNamara, Kevin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNulty, Tony

Singh, Marsha

MacShane, Denis

Skinner, Dennis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Mahon, Mrs Alice

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Snape, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Ms Rachel

Meale, Alan

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Merron, Gillian

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stevenson, George

Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mitchell, Austin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moffatt, Laura

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stringer, Graham

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

(Dewsbury)

(B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, David (NWLeics)

Mudie, George

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mullin, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Fit Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Truswell, Paul

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

353

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wilson, Brian

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Winnick, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tynan, Bill

Woodward, Shaun

Vis, Dr Rudi

Woolas, Phil

Ward, Ms Claire

Worthington, Tony

Wareing, Robert N

Wray, James

watts,David

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Watts, David

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

White, Brian

Wyatt, Derek

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. David Jamieson.

(Swansea W)

NOES

Allan, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Baker, Norman

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Ballard, Jackie

Kirkwood, Archy

Beggs, Roy

Livsey, Richard

Beith, RtHon A J

Llwyd, Elfyn

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Brake, Tom

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Brand, Dr Peter

Moore, Michael

Breed, Colin

Oaten, Mark

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Rendel, David

Burnett, John

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Burstow, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Sanders, Adrian

Chidgey, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Chope, Christopher

Stunell, Andrew

Cotter, Brian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Feam, Ronnie

Tyler, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Webb, Steve

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Willis, Phil

Gidley, Sandra

Wilshire, David

Hancock, Mike

Harris, Dr Evan

Tellers for the Noes:

Harvey, Nick

Sir Robert Smith and Mr. David Heath.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02 (HC 156), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Local Government Finance (England)
6.17 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02 (HC 158), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
We would normally debate the two motions on local government finance in one debate, but I understand that some Conservative Members objected to that idea. I apologise to the House for that because I know that many Back Benchers want to speak on the main motion, but that is not in the hands of those on the Government Benches. Juvenile games seem to be the order of the day among Conservative Members, so we will just have to indulge them.
High-quality public services are the foundation of strong communities. The investment that we are announcing today will help ensure that councils throughout the country can continue to improve the quality of our local environment, to help tackle crime, to raise standards in our schools and to care for the most vulnerable members of our society.
The Government believe in the value of public services and are committed to ensuring that all our public services have the investment that they need to meet the aspirations and expectations of the public. That is why, since we came to office, we have invested an additional £8 billion, an increase of 14 per cent. in real terms, in grant support, compared with a 7 per cent. reduction during the last four years of the previous Administration's period in office. It is why I am pleased to announce that this year's settlement—£44.6 billion in total support from Government grant and business rates, an increase of £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent. —represents the best settlement for local government since the introduction of the council tax.
That does not mean that I am oblivious to the difficult choices that many authorities have to make and the challenges that face local communities.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister seems to be judging the quality of services by the amount of other people's money spent on them. In that case, will she comment on the fairly strong story that the new Mayor, a monster that she has unleashed on London, proposes to put his precept up by some 33 per cent., bearing in mind that, at the referendum, the Government said that the increase would be 3p a week for Londoners?
Ms Armstrong: I made it absolutely clear that budget setting is for local councils; it is not for the Government to determine what those budgets should be. We seek to provide sufficient resources for authorities to budget in a manner ensuring that, with best value, services improve annually. I also know that the Greater London Authority is considering with great alacrity the Mayor's budget proposals.
We are also providing for substantially increased capital investment by local government in long-term infrastructure improvements. Total local authority capital investment is planned to be £6.1 billion in 2001–02, increasing to £8 billion in 2003–04. That has been welcomed across local government. Furthermore,we have replaced the boom and bust and cuts climate of the

355
previous Conservative Government, which undermined local public services, with economic stability and reasonable certainty about future funding. To be wise spenders, councils need to be able to plan ahead.
We already publish three-year plans for total general grant and limit the extent to which the grant formula will change. From this year, we are going further and providing information on the majority of capital allocations and specific grants on a three-year basis. Councils across the country have welcomed that change.
As I made clear to the House in November, the operation of the general grant distribution formula for 2001–02, if left unchecked, would produce an unacceptably wide range of outcomes. Some authorities would receive grant increases of about 10 per cent., whereas others would see their grant cut in real terms. That cannot be right. The reasons for the variation are large changes in the estimated population of local authority areas and changes in the earnings data used to calculate the area cost adjustment.
We have always made it clear that we shall take new data into account in the formula. However, as I also explained to the House in November, to prevent those changes in data from undermining delivery of the Government's priorities of education and social services—I believe that people and their local councils agree about those priorities—I announced that I would set a floor and a ceiling on the general grant increase received by any authority with education and social services responsibilities.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the floor that she introduced which has given Plymouth an additional £2 million over and above what it would have received under the formula invented by the Conservative Government? However, may I ask her to nail the story being put about in Plymouth by the leader of the local Tory-controlled council, who claims that Plymouth is always at the bottom of the pile when it comes to local government finance? [Interruption.] Will she also nail his claim—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must know that there is very limited time for this debate. Interventions must be extremely brief on this occasion.
Ms Armstrong: I am very happy to nail that claim, and suspect that other hon. Members in the Chamber have nailed it fairly effectively. Almost every authority that comes to see me claims that it is at the bottom of the pile. The reality is that all local authorities have benefited significantly since this Government came to power. We have reversed the cuts that were made by the previous Administration and built on the available new investment.
In November, I proposed a floor increase of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent. As expected, a broad range of views emerged from consultation on that proposal.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Armstrong: I suspect that I am about to hear another view.
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for giving way. The reality of the floor and the ceiling is of course
356
that the floor is just a damping system—a continuation of the system operated by the previous Administration and dealt with, as I understand it, in the next report on special grant. As a result of the ceiling, however, those councils whose standard spending assessments reveal greater need than others will lose out. Moreover, those authorities will lose again because of the funding reshuffle between the ceiling and the floor. Approximately 400 authorities across the country will receive less than that necessary to deal with their problems, as revealed by the needs indices.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman—for reasons that I totally understand—has absolute faith in the SSA system and the distribution system, but I do not. I think that there are still flaws in that system, and that the use of the mechanism of floors and ceilings recognises that system's problems and tries to ameliorate them. He is right that the previous Conservative Government—he was an Environment Minister in that Administration—introduced damping grants. However, they never introduced anything like a base level grant increase of at least 3.2 per cent.
There was broad agreement on the concept of the floor, but views differed on how it should be paid for. Given that the overall total for distribution is fixed, I could not agree to proposals for funding the floor with extra resources. I considered carefully the proposition that the burden should be shared among local authorities by top-slicing the total grant—which was the method usually used by the Conservative Government—but that would require authorities to contribute in proportion to their council tax base. In other words, the authorities that were not receiving a large increase would have had to contribute even more to the floor than they would using the scaling factor that I propose.
I therefore concluded that a better approach was to allocate contributions to the floor in relation to the size of the increase received by authorities above the floor. It is still my view that it would be best to set limits on what would otherwise be a very wide range of grant increases because that would have made service planning very difficult for authorities.
I am therefore confirming my proposal to set a floor of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent. on general grant increases for authorities with responsibility for education and social services. A 6.5 per cent. increase in general grant should be sufficient for most ceiling authorities, even after allowing for the fact that they have growing populations, and particularly when many of them are receiving substantial sums in other grants. A 3.2 per cent. increase is reasonable for floor authorities, taking into account the fact that most of them face population reductions. Those increases will be topped by significant increases in other grants.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Armstrong: I do not think that it is fair simply to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will attempt later to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Following careful consideration, I proposed to make one exception to the ceiling rule. Quite exceptional circumstances apply to the Isles of Scilly council, and it is always treated separately within the settlement.

357
It cannot avoid substantial capital expenditure to maintain essential waste disposal services. That capital expenditure should receive revenue support in the usual manner, through Government grant. If I treated the Isles of Scilly council on exactly the same basis as all other authorities with education and social services responsibilities, however, that extra revenue support would take its grant increase above the ceiling. Its annual budget is extremely small, and it would clearly have exceptional difficulty accommodating the expenditure. I shall therefore not limit its grant increase this year.
For local authorities that do not have education and social services responsibilities, no floors or ceilings will be imposed. I intend to continue the guarantee provided for the past two years that no such authority will receive less central support from the Government in 2001–02 than in 2000–01.
Of course, I know that the grant distribution system that we inherited attracts a lot of criticism—not least from Labour Members. It has not made it easy for authorities to plan ahead to improve their services. It does not encourage authorities to take responsibility for their budget choices. It is also very difficult for people to understand. It is small wonder that authorities continue to doubt its fairness.
Mr. David Drew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for receiving representations in regard to Gloucestershire's fire and rescue service, but will she listen again to our special plea about our standard spending assessment? Having managed to negotiate an increase of 1.4 per cent. down to 1.3 per cent., I hope that I can be more successful when I lobby her in the future.
Ms Armstrong: There are special problems in Gloucestershire that I discussed with my hon. Friend earlier today. They result from a blip in the figures this year. It is not right that the formula should respond in the way that it has, and that is why we are reviewing the distribution system. I hope, by taking account of matters such as that, that we can create a fairer system.
We are not rushing to hasty solutions, as some would urge. We are building a consensus on the way forward with local government and other stakeholders. We have received a massive response to our Green Paper—more than 16,000 replies. We are currently finalising our analysis of those responses and the details will be published on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website by the beginning of March.
However, this settlement must not been seen in isolation. The Government have responded to specific pressures in four areas. First, we have looked again at the funding position of authorities with the most serious deprivation problems. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 24 January a doubling of the provision for the neighbourhood renewal fund in 2001–2002, from £100 million to £200 million. These additional resources will help local authorities improve their mainstream services in the most deprived neighbourhoods.
Secondly, in some areas where there have been serious floods this year, authorities faced the prospect of an increased levy from the Environment Agency to cover the costs incurred in dealing with them. My hon. Friend the
358
Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has responsibility for the countryside and fisheries, announced on 26 January that he will provide an additional £11.6 million for the Environment Agency, to limit the burden falling on local authorities.
Mr. Don Foster: Is the £11.6 million genuinely new money, or is it part of the £51 million over four years announced by the Chancellor some months ago?
Ms Armstrong: I understand that £11.6 million was included in the spending review, but not in the £51 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), announced on 26 January additional funding of £25 million to help local authorities facing significant increases in the cost of housing homeless households in temporary accommodation. This will help all authorities that are in that position, including those accommodating large numbers of asylum seekers.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 29 January a new grant of £52 million to provide help in meeting education spending pressures to those education authorities with the lowest increases in education funding from other sources.
Mr. David Taylor: In recent years, Leicestershire has languished at the bottom of the county league table in respect of the amount of SSA granted per pupil in both primary and secondary schools. The extra £100,000 announced just days ago compares with a shortfall of £12 million. On that basis, it will take more than a century for us to reach the average county level. By the time that gap has been fully bridged, children in Leicestershire will probably be rather too old to benefit.
Ms Armstrong: I understand the concern of my hon. Friend, who has constantly paid attention to these matters and made representations about them on behalf of his constituency. However, he has not taken into account the ring-fenced grants that Leicestershire has received this year. They amount to an increase of about 24.6 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment took that into account in calculating the money from the £52 million.
Mr. Steve Webb: Before she moves away from the subject of the money announced on Monday, will the Minister explain the exact mechanism by which Bristol council received £700,000? None of the other three former Avon authorities, which include South Gloucestershire, are Labour controlled. They received only £100,000. What formula lay behind those allocations?
Ms Armstrong: I have already said that other funding that councils have received was weighed against the pressures that they face. [Interruption.] The Department for Education and Employment gave a clear indication of the criteria that were taken into account when calculating the amounts disbursed. It allocated £100,000 to all authorities that have not benefited from the

359
neighbourhood renewal fund. The sum involved totals £8 million. Those authorities that face the greatest pressure as a result of the transfer of adult education funding to the Learning and Skills Council were also compensated.
I suspect that gains and losses would have been equally distributed among the authorities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. A note from the Department for Education and Employment shows that consideration was given to the way in which pressures on authorities from pay, prices and increased contributions to the standards fund compared with their increase in education SSA and the funding that I have outlined. It is clear, therefore, that the Department for Education and Employment took into account pressures faced by authorities, and the moneys that they had already received. It made its calculations on that basis.
Mr. John McDonnell: It is clear that the formula has produced some anomalies. For example, outer-London boroughs facing severe teacher shortages are not getting significant sums in additional benefit under this formula, but neither are they getting it from funding under the education action zone or excellence in the cities schemes.
Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend must take that up with the Department for Education and Employment. Under this settlement, outer London did especially well overall.
No doubt Conservative Members will predict council tax increases, as they have every year since we came to office. I understand that they are talking about an increase of 9.1 per cent. Every year they are proved wrong. The rate of council tax increase continues to decline. They were miles out last year, and I suspect that they will be miles out again this year.
The Government will not indulge in such fruitless speculation, and it would not be right for me to make predictions about what are essentially local decisions made by authorities accountable to local people. What is important is that local authorities consult local people and consider fully the scope for cost effectiveness before setting their budgets.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: I am anxious to make progress.
Mr. Waterson: I should have thought it customary to give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in a debate such as this. The Minister cannot get away with what she has said. She has suggested that she expects increases to be below 6.1 per cent. Will she give the House some idea of how much below that figure the increases will be?
Ms Armstrong: I have continually said that I expect that, for most authorities, the rate of council tax increase will continue to decline. Labour authorities have the lowest council tax bills, whereas councils controlled by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties cost people £100 a year more, on average. In line with our
360
commitment to local accountability, we abolished crude and universal capping and no longer set authorities' spending limits in advance. In general, councils have responded well to this approach in the past two years. Local authorities also made representations on council tax benefit subsidy limitation. I have considered these carefully, but have decided to make no change to the scheme that I proposed on 27 November, as amended on 15 December.
This local government settlement forms an important part of the Government's commitment to public services. We are working together with local government to provide a stable financial and planning environment for delivering better services. We have consistently put additional investment into local government and, by managing the economy in the way that we are, we will continue to seek to do so.
Our proposals for 2001–02 have been widely welcomed by local government because they complement the reform and the work in which local government is involved. It is true that local government continues to want to do more and the Government will work with it to ensure that that is possible.
I commend the motion to the House.
6.41 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: This is a Government who live and will die by spin. As we have seen in the events surrounding the second resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), this is the Government of the short cut, the quick fix, the nod and the wink.
The Minister would have us believe that this financial settlement for local government is arrived at gravely and deliberately, with no political input. She talks about stability and even of a freeze in standard spending assessment methodology. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The plain truth is that the Government have found themselves in a tight corner over the new earnings data for the area cost adjustment. So before the recent statement, we had the introduction of floors and ceilings, despite the fact that we are supposed to be having a freeze while Ministers mull over the reaction to their Green Paper.
There are three real concerns about the floors and ceilings. First, they provide the prospect of distortion by introducing these mechanisms, complicating an already complex system. Secondly, if the statistical data are reliable and show that a particular council has sustained these extra costs in their area, they should be fully reflected in the grant system. The system would surely be more defensible if it related to what happens in the real world. Thirdly, there is the real possibility, now and in the future, of political interference by Ministers in how the grant is distributed between one part of the country and another. We see the system as a way of shifting resources to some Labour-run authorities and marginal seats around the country.
We must remember that shire counties will have lost out in this Parliament to the tune of £700 million as a direct result of changes in methodology at the beginning

361
of the Government's term in office. All this talk of stability merely cements in these unfairnesses. The London boroughs have lost out by some £350 million.
Ms Armstrong: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in the plain truth. The plain truth is that if we had continued with the Tories' figures, all authorities would have lost substantially more. What the hon. Gentleman means is that by changing methodology, we achieved a fairer system of distribution. All authorities have gained by substantially more than the figures that he has quoted, including London and the shire counties.
Mr. Waterson: Somebody who does not agree that we have a fairer system is the Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). He said
"the faceless bureaucrats normally hidden in the bowels of John Prescott's super ministry deserve a good kicking because of the Government's whacking cuts to the poorest London councils."
Ever since the statement on the provisional settlement, the ground has shifted again. The Times reported that there were crisis talks between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. It said:
"the package was agreed on after crisis talks between Mr. Prescott and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor. There had been fears that the impact of projected increases of up to three times the rate of inflation would cost Labour dozens of seats at the election."
I see that some of those seats are represented in the Chamber tonight.
Lo and behold, Ministers rushed out an announcement of a £100 million emergency package—money diverted from the neighbourhood renewal fund—to keep down council tax increases in a large number of marginal Labour seats such as Enfield, which has a majority of 1,433, Bristol, West, where the majority is 1,493 and Hastings, where it is just over 2,500.
Mrs. Gilroy: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Is he saying that the Tory-controlled Plymouth city council should not have been given the £2 million that it received as a floor for the area cost adjustment, and that we should not have the neighbourhood renewal fund?
Mr. Waterson: No, of course I am not saying that. I am simply saying that it is curious how a significant number of Labour marginal seats seem suddenly to have benefited from this largesse.
Another £25 million popped up so that some councils could tackle homelessness. It is interesting that the problems caused by asylum seekers featured prominently in the relevant press release, despite the Government's dismal failure on this aspect of their policy.
Another £11.6 million was suddenly found to help councils that have suffered particularly badly in the recent flooding. Similarly, a sum of £52 million has been found for education. There are concerns as to whether that is all new money or merely recycled or reheated announcements of old money.
We all know about the problems faced across the country, including in my area, with regard to bed blocking and the crisis in social services. That is addressed only partly by recent extra funding in some areas for the national health service.
362
This all amounts to what some commentators have called a pattern of behaviour in the context of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. As The Times put it, this brings to £189 million the amount of cash the Cabinet has rushed together since the Government unveiled their initial local government settlement in November.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under a Conservative Government, that money would not have been provided to those areas where it is clearly urgently needed?
Mr. Waterson: I think that the answer is clear: we need to look at the settlement in the round and see the unfairnesses that are being created across the country.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the muddle between the floors and ceilings has enabled the Government to have more money to distribute by selection rather than by an assessment of needs?
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Mr. David Taylor rose—
Mr. Waterson: No, I will not give way any more at the moment.
What comments have come forth on this extra largesse? Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour head of the Local Government Association, said:
"we do regret the increase of expenditure being passed through specific grants, which are too tightly controlled by Whitehall, and therefore limit the degree of choice in assessing particular local needs."
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who I see is in the Chamber, is one of a number of Labour Back Benchers who feel that their areas have been treated unfairly. He said in a recent letter:
"Outrageously, the data benefits those authorities already gaining from Area Cost Adjustment…To deflect criticism of this further injustice, DETR has put forward the 'floor and ceiling' proposals."
The hon. Gentleman makes the obvious point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) a moment ago, that as a result of bringing in the ceilings and floors, all other authorities must receive less grant to pay for the difference. This means that the 103 authorities between the floor and the ceiling lose about 4 per cent. of grant that they would have received under the old system. [Interruption.] The Minister says no, but she must sort out her differences with the hon. Member for Stafford in some other place.
The hon. Gentleman talks about making representations to the Minister. He said:
"It was evident that the DETR has a block of money to distribute. The Minister can slice the block one way or another way".
Clearly, a decision has been taken to slice it in a way that might help electorally.
The hon. Gentleman talks about meetings with the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and ends on a forlorn note:
"I doubt that we will persuade them to meet us in person".
Mr. David Kidney: In areas such as Staffordshire, the great anger is that the area cost

363
adjustment has nothing to do with need—it is not a proven figure on which to rely. Will the hon. Gentleman say on behalf of the official Opposition whether he will stand by the area cost adjustment as a legitimate way to dispose of money to local authorities?
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. When we find out what situation we have inherited, with all these floors and ceilings, we will take a view on the matter.
Mr. Kidney rose—
Mr. Waterson: I will not give way again.
Of course, some areas benefit substantially from the area cost adjustment, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Those are the verdicts of some people who ought to know about the figures. Why are Ministers and Labour Back Benchers panicking so much in the run-up to the election? It is because we are talking about yet another broken election promise. When the Prime Minister said,
"we have no plans to increase tax at all",
he clearly hoped that people would assume that he was not talking about council tax. The fact is that the average band D council tax increased this year from £689 in 1997–78 to £847, or by 23 per cent. On average, it has soared by three times the rate of inflation. By the time of the next election, the average British family could be paying an extra £200 in council tax alone.
This year, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is being coy, but last year she predicted that council tax would rise by an average of 4.8 per cent. It rose by 6.1 per cent. Have we any reason to believe that her predictions this year would be any more reliable? The Department talks about a 5 per cent. increase in the coming year. The Minister declines the opportunity to predict the rise, talking about "fruitless speculation".
Incidentally, the Minister trots out the old chestnut, trying to suggest that comparing band D bills is not appropriate. Peter Kellner—not exactly a Conservative commentator—said:
"Homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower council tax bands and this was why average council tax was lower … The proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like … Band D figures, council by council".
He went on to point out that Labour's
"claim is as misleading as it ever was…On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right."
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on tax increases?
Mr. Waterson: No.
Mr. Davies: I thought not.
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman can try to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye.
The Minister will not engage in what she calls "fruitless speculation", so we have been doing some research of our own. We have done a sample survey of councils throughout England. Our survey reveals—it is early days,
364
as councils are still setting their budgets—that council tax could increase by 9 per cent. this year, putting £77 on the average band D council tax bill.
What is particularly worrying—it may worry the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) as much as anyone—is that council tax has risen by 25 per cent. in the past three years in Labour's top 25 marginal constituencies. The projected percentage change in council tax in those seats, from 1997–98 to 2001–02, is a staggering 33 per cent. That is a staggering extra stealth tax on the British people. For all the hon. Members whose names are on that list of marginal seats, it is a worrying development.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to hear from Worcestershire, where there are three marginal Labour seats and three Conservative-held seats. A Labour council has been in charge for the past four years, during which time council tax has risen by 50 per cent. This year everyone has a choice. On a Worcestershire council website one can choose a council tax increase of 7.5 per cent., 10.5 per cent. or 13.5 per cent. Only with the latter figure will there not be a cut in services.
Mr. Waterson: That says it all about what is happening in the real world.
Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that matter?
Mr. Waterson: In a moment, but let me finish on this point. There is no need for the Minister to get aggressive.
I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) recently with the delegation of head teachers from Worcestershire, who brought to this place all the concerns of hundreds of teachers and thousands of parents about the massive problems being caused in the education system by lack of Government funding.
Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants to encourage large tax increases? I refer him to Essex, which is a county that the Conservative party runs, although only just. The leader of that council said that this year it would have the largest council tax rise of any county council. That is against the background of Essex county council receiving a total increase in spending of 7.3 per cent. this year, and that does not include the extra £100,000 that it is getting in education money. Should any authority be talking about high council taxes and rises when it is getting an increase of 7.3 per cent. from external funding?
Mr. Waterson: That shows what the Minister is seeking to achieve. By starving Conservative-controlled councils of the funding that they need, she is trying to provoke a situation in which they are blamed for having to increase the council tax beyond what is reasonable.
Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waterson: I will not give way any more at the moment.

365
Those council tax rises hit some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The figures show that one third of the increase in the state pension under this Government has been eaten up by soaring council taxes. In the past three years, the state pension has risen by £421, whereas the average band D council tax bill has risen by £158, which is equivalent to 38 per cent. of the pension rise. That is a staggering amount for elderly people to have to find.
Despite what I was saying about the Government starving many Conservative-dominated areas of funding, Conservative councils still have the lowest council taxes. In the coming year, a typical band D household is paying £724 under the average Conservative-controlled council compared with £124 more—almost £2.50 a week—under a Labour-controlled council.
In case the Liberal Democrats think that they are going to escape scot free. I should point out that the average band D tax in the councils that they control is £803, which is over 10 per cent. more than in Conservative-controlled councils. Of course, the Liberal Democrats now preside over Liverpool, which is the council with the highest council tax in England. A band D tax payer there now pays nearly £100 a week.
That is not the end of the bad news for ordinary citizens, as it is evident for all to see that, far from delivering greater efficiency and accountability in local government, the Government's best value regime is producing a bloated bureaucracy and heavy additional costs for already hard-pressed councils. The Government have allocated £40 million for best value and the Local Government Association has demanded an extra £175 million.
The Government are forging ahead with their centralising agenda for local government. They are busily imposing the cabinet system on the majority of local authorities. Only a few days ago, they forced through the House their misguided plans for greater secrecy in local government. The inexorable rise of specific grants as a proportion of Government grant means the tightening of central Government control over local government—there has been a rise in just one year of 18 per cent. in the proportion of specific grants.
On top of that, we have the Minister's continued boast that capping has been abolished. Of course, no such thing has happened. The Government have not scrapped crude and universal capping—I notice that in last year's Hansard that came out as "cruel" and universal capping, but in the Minister's lexicon, that amounts to the same thing. That remains as a reserve power. There is also the so-called "refined" capping on the council tax benefit limitation scheme.
As if all that were not bad enough, the Labour Government are planning a raft of new taxes on local communities: congestion taxes; workplace parking taxes; and supplementary business rates. The Government have been an unmitigated disaster for local government and for the communities served by local government. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the report.
7 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I am sure that many other Members want to speak, so I shall try to keep my contribution brief.
366
I must point out, however, that the amount of time allowed for this important debate is scandalous; many hon. Members will not have an opportunity to contribute.
Members on both sides of the House will agree that what local government needs more than anything else is a fair funding grant system, based on definable need. I am sure that one thing that will emerge from the debate is that the current system does not fulfil that basic criterion. I imagine that the reactions of hon. Members to this year's settlement, which was announced in the House on 18 December, will largely depend on the class of authority that they represent.
The average settlement for metropolitan authorities outside London was 3.8 per cent; for shire and unitary authorities, it was 4.9 per cent; and for London authorities, it was 6 per cent. Barnsley received an additional 3.2 per cent. and Doncaster received 3.6 per cent.—both of which are below the metropolitan average.
I know that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has received many representations from all classes of authority, especially from non-London metropolitan authorities, about this year's settlement. There is no doubt that the Government have listened to their representations. They can be proud that they have increased standard spending assessments by an average of 4.3 per cent. in each year since taking office. The average of the last four years under the Tories was a paltry 1.5 per cent.
Additional support outside the rate support grant settlement has been found so as to ease specific pressures on councils. The Government have increased by £100 million the first-year allocation to the new neighbourhood renewal fund; that is targeted support for local authorities representing the 88 most deprived neighbourhoods. Indeed, Barnsley received an additional £1.3 million and Doncaster received an additional £2.2 million in such funding.
There is no doubt that my constituency is one of the most deprived in the country. Last year, it was calculated that the gross domestic product per capita in Barnsley, East and Mexborough was only 62 per cent. of the European average. I understand that is the lowest in the UK—no wonder Barnsley and Doncaster and the rest of South Yorkshire qualify for objective 1 funding from Europe.
Barnsley and Doncaster will also benefit from the additional £11.6 million flood relief funding allocated to the Environment Agency to relieve pressure on council tax payers in flood-affected areas. They will share the additional £52 million education budget support grant for local authorities that received more modest increases in education funding from the RSG. Doncaster will receive an additional £880,000, but unfortunately Barnsley will receive only an additional £180,000.
The Government have thus responded positively to local authority concerns, but local authorities such as Barnsley and Doncaster, languishing at the bottom of the SSA league, need not additional pockets of grant aid but fundamental changes to the local government funding system. I know that the Government are committed to such changes. Until we address the inherent problems embedded in the current SSA formula-funded grant system, local authorities at the bottom of the SSA league will always struggle.

367
Next year's budget for Barnsley and Doncaster—the two local authorities that I represent—will be extremely tight, but of the two, Barnsley's position is by far the more difficult to address. Data changes and the area cost adjustment have resulted in a loss of about £2.2 million to Barnsley.
The Government's ceilings and floors concept is good in principle, but, as it operates at present, it does not close the gap. Indeed, it has a perverse impact, as the poor pay for the poor. Barnsley pays £100,000 into the fund to ameliorate Liverpool's losses and Doncaster pays back £218,000. Even after those additional resources, Barnsley still faces estimated cuts of about £11 million over the next two years.
I fully support the Government requirement to passport moneys to key priority services, such as education, social services and highways, but it means that nearly all the reductions under consideration will fall on the "other services" block. By how much will the "other services" block grant be increased next year?
That block covers general community services, so the impact of cuts will be felt in reductions in, for example, welfare rights—a service that Barnsley can ill afford to cut. One in three households in my constituency include at least one disabled person. As a Government, we are trying to encourage the take-up of initiatives such as the minimum income guarantee. If we cut welfare rights officers in Barnsley, we shall not achieve that.
Barnsley is having to consider reductions in land reclamation. Our reclamation programme is extremely large because of the legacy of the former mining industry. The need to clear up our industrial eyesores is drastic if we are to succeed in attracting new inward investors to Barnsley. We shall have to consider reductions in economic development and regeneration initiatives. Barnsley and Doncaster are in an objective 1 area, yet no additional resources can be allocated to meet councils' contribution to capital and revenue schemes.
We might have to consider reducing services such as trading standards, environmental health and street cleansing. The irony is that those reductions would fall on the very services that have been determined as priorities by the local community, through local area forums and strategic local partnerships. The Minister is aware that Barnsley has probably led the way in adopting the cabinet system; we did so long before it was made compulsory, as it were. We are working hard to the Government's modernisation agenda.
Significant job losses are expected because of Barnsley's budgetary position. It is anticipated that about 225 full-time equivalent posts will be lost, with an associated cost of about £1.8 million. Unfortunately, such costs cannot be prudently met from balances; the authority's external auditor has already determined that they are inadequate, so such additional one-off costs will have to be met from further cuts. Will the Minister consider our authority for additional help—for example, via the capitalisation of such one-off costs with an appropriate allowance from supplementary credit approvals?
I know that the Government are wholly committed to the successful future of local government and the valuable services that it provides. The Government must realise,
368
however, that the current SSA system was set up by the previous Conservative Government specifically to disadvantage certain classes of local authority, which include Barnsley and Doncaster in the traditional Labour heartlands. The only way in which we can successfully address the bias inherent in the existing system is to introduce a more transparent and simpler funding regime based on local need. The sooner after the general election that the next Labour Government bring in such a system, the better it will be for all concerned.
7.10 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). I share his concerns about the lack of time allocated to this very important debate and about the current mechanism for funding local government, which, as he rightly pointed out, was introduced by the previous Government but which many of us hoped would have been changed by now.
I do not want to belittle some of the improvements that the Government have made to the funding arrangements for local government, not least the significant improvements in capital funding, but I do suggest that the Minister over-egged the pudding in her statements tonight and over recent days.
How can it be, as the Minister tells us, the most wonderful settlement for local government ever, when her hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough told us about the cuts in services that his local council will have to make, which I fear will be reflected in many other councils around the country?
We welcome the money that has been announced in the past few days, in addition to the amounts that were announced in the statement in November 2000, but even the recent announcement contains an element of hype. For example, the Minister tells us that there will be an additional £100 million for the neighbourhood renewal scheme, which she would argue brings the total to £200 million. She does not tell us that when the Chancellor initially announced £100 million for the scheme, the Red Book shows that he was also cutting £160 million from the new deal for the communities scheme, which was designed to do the same thing. As a result, even with the additional £100 million that has just been announced, the net increase is £40 million.
Similarly, when I intervened on the Minister a few minutes ago, she acknowledged that the £11.6 million of so-called additional money to help with flood defences was not new money at all, but was from some pot—she could not quite recall which—that the Chancellor had previously announced.
Despite all the arguments that we could have about likely council tax rises, the reality is that increases will be significantly above the inflation rate, despite what the Government are doing. The electorate want to know how that is the case.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman promises to be quick.
Mr. Bercow: I understand and sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in judging

369
the adequacy or otherwise of revenue spending will he tell us what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not want to be drawn into discussing all the details. One of our current problems is that the capital financing system for local government is hugely complex. The one thing that I would love to see more than any other is the introduction of a system that enables our local councils to borrow the money that they judge they need, pure and simple, without all the bureaucracy and complexity. Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom.
That observation leads me very nicely to the subject of freedom for local government, and the problems associated with funding mechanisms. Increasingly, central Government want local government to do more and more—for example, with personal social services—but do not necessarily make available the necessary resources. Our social services departments had already decided that, in the current financial year, they would have to spend well above standard spending assessment, especially on children's services. On average, social services departments are spending 27.4 per cent. more on children's services than the Government expected them to spend. That amounts to £550 million.
Only yesterday, the Local Government Association completed a survey of social services departments, which showed that they budgeted to spend much more than the Government expected. Those departments, collectively, are already £205 million overspent at this stage of the financial year. No wonder local councils up and down the land are unconvinced that the settlement for next year, as described today, will be sufficient to help them to repay the losses that they are making this year, let alone take account of their rising costs.
Rising costs are certainly not being funded by the Government. My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, has drawn my attention to the fact that a huge inconsistency between the capital asset thresholds determined by the Department of Social Security and by the Department of Health is to be introduced. That inconsistency will cost my local authority £100,000 in additional costs, which will not be met.
It gets worse. I welcome the Government's announcement in their NHS plan that they intend to boost the quality and availability of intermediate care to reduce the phenomenon of bed blocking. They say that, over three years, that will cost about £900 million, but they expect local government to provide most of the services to meet that aspiration. I have checked today with the Local Government Association, which has analysed the Minister's statement today and can see no evidence of any resources being made available in next year's settlement to help personal social services departments to pay for the boost to intermediate care. It is a further additional burden that local authorities are obliged to fund from their own budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point.
The Government will undoubtedly make an announcement about the teachers' pay award in the next few days. I hope very much that it will be a good
370
settlement; we desperately need it. Last September, we were 4,000 teachers short. Pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools are now at their worst for more than 20 years. We desperately need to do something about that shortage. However, if that good teachers' pay award—some are now talking of figures as high as 3.7 per cent.—is not fully funded by the Government, it will impose huge pressures on our local councils, whose education budgets, too, are already massively overstretched.
It is no wonder, given those additional pressures, that council taxes are set to increase by significantly more than the rate of inflation. The Minister is not prepared to put a figure on it. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) put a figure on it of about 9 per cent. I shall place on the record our figure, because I gave it last November and the evidence suggests that I am yet again likely to be right. I predict an increase of 6.7 per cent., but time will tell. However, the Minister, with her indication, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I all predict that council taxes across the land will increase by more than the rate of inflation. That is the fault not of local government but of the local government finance settlement from this Labour Government.
The speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne fascinated me. He says that we should deal with what is out there in the real world, but when he trots out the figures he uses council tax band D figures when it suits him and percentage increases when it suits him better. Let me choose one measure at random—the percentage increase—and remind the House that, for the financial year that has just been completed, the average council tax increase was 6 per cent. under a Liberal Democrat authority, 6.2 per cent. under a Labour authority and 8.5 per cent. under a Conservative authority.
I was staggered that the hon. Gentleman chose to introduce Liverpool into the equation. Of all the councils that he could have chosen, he should not have chosen to attack Liverpool, where, in the two years since the Liberal Democrats took over, the council tax rise was 0 per cent. and 0 per cent. I should have thought that he would welcome that.
Mr. Waterson: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that all the experts and pundits agree that the fairest comparison is the band D council tax. If he does, he must also accept that on average it is much more expensive to live under a Liberal Democrat or Labour-run council than under a Conservative council.
Mr. Foster: I said that when the hon. Gentleman wanted to attack authorities, on some occasions, he chose to use percentages and, on others, council tax band D. I therefore chose one of those methods at random. I am sorry if he does not like the figures, but they are correct.
Another important issue relates to the point made by hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who referred to the global settlement for local government. The amount of money available is part of the problem, but the strings attached to the sum allocated is the second part of the problem. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there has been a significant increase in the sums provided by special and specific grants—the strings that central Government attach to local government—but I slightly dispute the figure that he gave. I understand that the increase from the current year to next year is more

371
than 20 per cent. I hope that he will agree that the proportion of local government money that came from specific grants, with strings attached, was 4 per cent. in 1997, but that it will increase under a Labour Government to about 10 per cent. next year. In some areas, the increase is considerably more than that.
Specific grants for education amounted to £250 million in 1997, but next year, under a Labour Government, £2.6 billion will be constrained in that way—a tenfold increase. The problem is worse than that, because if a local authority reaches out and takes some of that money, with all the strings attached, it must also find matching funds. Therefore, about £3.3 billion is effectively tied up in specific grants. All evidence clearly shows that the Government talk about reinvigorating local government, but simply cannot let it go. Rather like old, imperial Britain, they are trying to run a huge empire from the centre. They have decentralised tax raising without decentralising the power to match.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, no progress is being made in distributing the money more fairly. I shall choose some examples at random. Why is a secondary school pupil in Westminster worth £4,271, when a child in Warminster is worth only £3,077? Mr. David Laws of Yeovil has advised me that a child in Somerset is worth more than £200 less than the national average. Many hon. Members acknowledge that there are real problems in urban areas, but there are real problems in rural areas, too. We have not yet devised an area cost adjustment, or another funding distribution mechanism, that truly takes account of real need, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Kidney: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) could not say that, as a matter of policy, the current area cost adjustment should be reformed. Will the hon. Gentleman at least say that the Liberal Democrats believe that it should?
Mr. Foster: I say absolutely categorically that the area cost adjustment should be reformed. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we need a simple, fair funding system that takes account of local need.
A redistribution mechanism is necessary, but other proposals would make life much easier. For example, why cannot local councils raise a far greater percentage of the money that they spend, with a corresponding reduction in national income tax, so that the local piper can call the local tune? Why has the current, unfair council tax been continued? Elderly people, for example, live in much larger houses, which are more expensive, yet their income is much lower. Why do not we adopt a much fairer system of local income tax? As other hon. Members have said, why is local government expenditure capped in any way? Why must we have this so-called sophisticated system under which the nearly poor pay for the really poor?
I welcome the introduction of floors because it makes sense to ensure that the councils that will lose money are given time to prepare, but why do ceilings need to be introduced? Surely that means that councils with real and immediate needs will not be provided with the support that they require.
372
The net effect is that, after four years of a Labour Government, Whitehall's tanks are still on our town hall lawns. The tanks may have changed colour, but they are still as heavy and powerful as ever. Local people want to feel more, not less, in control of the issues that are important to them. If all the decisions that count are taken hundreds of miles away, is it any wonder that people lose interest in the political process?
7.26 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: The time allocated to this motion is pretty short to say the least, which is a shame because this was developing into an interesting debate. Both sides of the House have their positions to defend; nevertheless, my hon. Friends have not been afraid to say where we would like to see improvements and, for that reason alone, this has been a useful exercise.
The Opposition say that the Government have somehow used the area cost adjustment for political purposes, but I seem to remember from my time in local government that we could have argued the same way when they were in government. I met various Ministers to discuss the issue. In fact, I used to deal with someone who now sits on the Opposition Benches.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) that the SSA issue must be addressed. I am glad that the Minister says that she is doing so, but I urge a little caution. Anyone who knows anything about the formula—no one knows everything about it because it confuses everyone—says that any change in the SSA must be dealt with carefully. We must be careful, and people both inside and outside local government have debated that often.
I sometimes think that it is dangerous to come from a local government background, certainly when debating the issue in the House, but I am struck by the fact that, even with the best of intentions, those in local government, especially the employees, feel constantly under attack. More should be done to improve the morale of local government employees. A bit of dignity should be reintroduced, because they have all been at the butt of competitive tendering by successive Governments. We have all seen the experiments of the past 20 years, and it is about time that they were called to a halt.
It is time to build up public confidence in our local services because, in one way or another, most of the major political parties are committed to public services. Whether we are talking about teachers' bargaining rights or ordinary local government workers' concerns about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and being transferred into the private sector, we must rejuvenate public confidence in local services. Those are some of the issues that concern me.
Having said that, I welcome the Government's £8 billion increase in local government expenditure, but there could still be a £3.5 billion shortfall. The Government cannot put such matters right overnight, and we must bear in mind that there are still major problems. For example, during the past two or three years, the social services department in Coventry has found itself with a shortfall of £4 million or £5 million. The projected shortfall is £5 million and £6 million for the next year or two.
There is a trend to move social services away from local government control. We must give social services, especially the personal service aspects, more serious

373
consideration than we have given them in the past. We must consider the impact on services for various age groups, including those for children and elderly people, and the fact that it is difficult to recruit social workers and people to provide other services, such as home care for the elderly.
I return to a point that I made earlier. We must stop knocking local government and start supporting the people who work to deliver the services. I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the problems in Coventry, which have created two or three crises in the past two or three years in the delivery of social services. The increase in the assistance that Coventry has received for social services is about 2.6 per cent. below the national average. I readily acknowledge that the Government have provided assistance, but we must deal with such problems.
I welcome the £6 billion for capital investment. That will help to some extent. Although I know that things cannot happen overnight, I would like to see more done.
I also welcome the £52 million that will be spent on teachers' salaries to aid recruitment. As a trade unionist, I have always thought that teachers should have the same negotiating rights as everybody else. I know that the review body is due to report shortly, but I hope that it will consider not only salaries, but negotiating rights and the way in which performance-related pay is working in practice and affecting teachers' morale.
Time is short, but I want to say in concluding that we must do more about training in local government and about capital investment for data changes and computer equipment. We should want everyone to participate in service delivery. I would have liked to mention a range of other issues, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
7.31 pm
Mr. David Curry: This has been the year of the sticking plaster. The fact that the Government have had to put so much sticking plaster on to their original settlement should not disguise the real thrust of the settlement. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right: there has been a remorseless advance in direct grants at the expense of unhypothecated expenditure.
The Government proclaim that they like local government and local government freedoms. They say that they are giving more liberty to local government, but every year the amount of money that is directly controlled by the Government increases as a proportion of the settlement. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has increased by £2.6 billion for education alone this year, so the Government's proclamations of independence for local government are entirely hypocritical.
Labour Members have been wailing about the area cost adjustment, but when the Minister and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) were in opposition four or five years ago they told us how easy it would be to sort out the area cost adjustment. They said that it was a matter of lack of will on the then Government's part and that anyone who applied a couple of iotas of intelligence to the matter would soon sort it out. After four years of a Labour Government, the solution has not advanced by a single comma. We have had a series of fertile little ruses—a sort of "petite astuce"—to make the settlement work.
374
Of course, the settlement does not work, which is why we have had improvisations. No one would object to additional money for neighbourhood renewal, except for the fact that that money has not had to be bid for; it is allocated at the Minister's pleasure. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is curious to see the local authorities to which it has been allocated.
No one would object to additional money to meet the teachers' pay settlement. In the inner cities and London in particular, retaining teachers is a gargantuan problem. If the pay increase is to be 3.5 per cent. or thereabouts, it will go only a tiny way to helping with that problem. In addition, no one objects to helping local authorities to deal with asylum seekers.
Another bit of sticking plaster is the attempt to deal with the problems of the Environment Agency and the cost of flooding. The Government need to do a little more, and it is not just a question of money. They have failed to address the issue correctly in three respects. First, the Bellwin scheme comes in only when spending is 0.2 per cent. of the whole of an authority's budget. It is a curiously perverse phenomenon that the mass of teachers' salaries governs how much an authority would receive from the Bellwin scheme. Secondly, no help has been given to make good the damage to roads and bridges.
Thirdly, the increase in the Environment Agency levy is accounted for not in the year in which the increase bites, but subsequently. Thus there is a cash-flow hit on local authorities that can only come out of the council tax or services. That is particularly true of my authority of North Yorkshire. Of course, we are pleased with the additional money, which has meant that the demands on the council tax will be rather less than they would otherwise have been, but the announcement was about meeting historical costs, and the Government have to do that in any case. The sum is £500,000 short of the cost, and it is not all new money. The Government are recycling £2 million of the £51 million, and there is no provision for future investment.
The commitment to increase the rate of grant support for new capital works to 65 per cent. is welcome. However, the need to carry out enhanced maintenance as a result of the floods and to fast track capital schemes in areas that have been flooded not once but twice means that more cash is needed. The Government must pay attention to that problem and I draw their attention to the report published today by the Select Committee on Agriculture, which deals with it.
In the little remaining time that I have left, I wish to focus on the crisis facing social services departments. The Government have fast tracked and tried to passport money into education departments over a number of years. That is part of the business of untying the non-hypothecation of local government funding and making sure that Ministers control the money. However, the ragbag at the end of that process has been personal social services departments that have been asked to co-operate with health authorities and which have faced new demands from the housing authorities. It is no surprise that the members of personal social services departments are deeply demoralised.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Local Government Association has made calculations about the national scene, but the position in North Yorkshire is even worse. In North Yorkshire, a third of the elderly people who go into care have put themselves into care.

375
They become a charge on the local authority when they run out of money, and no account is taken of that charge in local government funding. That is entirely unfair, and we know about the consequences that it has for bed blocking.
In my local authority, there is an overspend of £300,000 on children's services, and the costs of placements in foster care and secure accommodation are 29 per cent. over the SSA. The overspend on the placements of adults and older people in residential and nursing home care is £1.3 million. There is a £1.6 million overspend and a funding gap of £3.5 million in personal social services. That is not because the local authority is inefficient—the inspectorate said that it was rather good at delivering social services—but because the Government do not take account of demography and the increasing propensity for some social workers to err on the side of caution for reasons that we all understand in the face of the habitual barrage of criticism that they receive.
Therefore, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of children who must be looked after. We have lost £600,000 in the children's SSA to fund the leaving care grant. As I said, 30 per cent. of older people who are newly referred for assessment have placed themselves in homes and reached the capital limit. That limit will rise, which will place an additional burden on local authorities.
The health service is demanding speedy discharge, because the number of blocked beds obviously causes concern. However, a couple of weeks ago, 108 older people were waiting for placements because of the phenomenon to which I have referred.
On the costs of rural care, a community councils network study, which was undertaken this year, considered the cost of delivering domiciliary care and suggested that North Yorkshire could justify an additional 2.8 per cent. of funding—or £600,000—for these services.
The social services department is under strain; there is no point pretending that it is not. Of course, the settlement is higher than previous settlements and money is being passported to education, but when that happens the focus inevitably shifts. For the same reasons that demographic changes make life difficult for the health service, they are also making it more difficult for personal social services departments. The Government rightly wish to see the two integrate much more effectively, but the pieces of sticking plaster are tinkerings with the system. They do not deal with the fundamental distribution problems and the Government have backed off from giving councils more freedom. Despite all the rhetoric, the apron strings are being tied tighter and tighter.
The Government claimed that they would provide more freedom, but the settlement is more interventionist. They said that the settlement would be simpler, but it is more complex. They said that the settlement would be fairer, but, as result of the famous topping and tailing, it is more arbitrary. We have a veneer of generosity, and the reality of prescription and inadequacy.
7.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have had an interesting debate and some worthwhile contributions have been
376
made, but our discussion has been all too short because of the antics of some Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) that Opposition Back Benchers have done little more than sabotage this debate. [Interruption.] I beg the Liberal Democrats' pardon; I am speaking only about Conservative Members.
However, despite the Opposition's entirely predictable rhetoric, hon. Members clearly recognise that this year's settlement continues the sustained and substantial investment in local government services that the Government have provided during the past three years, notwithstanding the pressures. That investment is but one strand of the wider and more fundamental reform of local government. That reform will put local government back where it should be. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in that respect.
We have a clear programme of reform for local government. We want it to plan for community well-being in the broadest sense, consult local people and work out the best way of providing services at a price that they are willing to pay. As our performance during the past few years demonstrates, we accept that local government needs a stable platform of adequate funding to achieve those aims. It must be able to rely on sustained real growth in funding so that it can plan for some years ahead.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said, this year's settlement is the best since the introduction of council tax. Total support from Government grant and business rates will constitute more than £44 billion. That is an increase of £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent., which comes on top of the substantial increases that have been made every year since we formulated the budget. In those four years, Government grant to local government has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms. That investment contrasts starkly with the 7 per cent. real-terms cut made by the Tories in the four years before the last election.
I have been concentrating on the general grant because the House is considering the overall settlement, but I should point out that it comes in addition to substantial ring-fenced grant increases this year. There has been a total increase of 34 per cent., with a 48 per cent. increase in the ring-fenced grant for education.
During the consultation period, we listened carefully to what local authorities, their associations and hon. Members from all parties told us about the difficulties faced by local government. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions mentioned, we took the view that there were four problem areas. It is curious that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) called that response to pressures "sticking plaster". That says a lot about the Tories' view on what consultation should be about. Indeed, when they were in government, they never listened or did anything in response to what people told them about their experiences. We are not like that. On top of providing a good settlement, we think that it is right to respond to the four problem areas.
It will be up to local authorities to finalise their budget plans. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon did not seem to understand that point. Whatever protestations Opposition Members make, we expect that this year's very good settlement will enable council tax increases as

377
a whole to continue on the downward trend that we have established. The majority of local authorities will be able to set a lower council tax increase this year than they did last year.
Let me put the increase in context. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon described a litany of problems, but North Yorkshire has been given a 4.8 increase in the general grant and a 26.2 per cent. increase in the specific grant. That constitutes a total increase in Government funding of 6.5 per cent., plus £100,000 from the extra £52 million education grant. North Yorkshire county council has received a minimum increase of £19 million this year.
Obviously, any big organisation must make decisions on priorities and on the pressures to which it wants to respond, but let us make no mistake: this Government are continuing to give local government the best settlements that it has ever received, certainly in my memory. Local government needs the ability to manage its budgets.
Mr. Curry: Does the Under-Secretary accept that, three years ago, North Yorkshire lost £3 million because the social services formula was changed? That was an enormous hit against a county with a rising demographic trend. More elderly people needed care and more children were being taken into care—issues on which the Government claim to want delivery.
Ms Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman's presentation of the circumstances that existed three years ago is completely erroneous. Investment in local authorities was increased at that time. That included North Yorkshire, where total Government investment increased.
Mr. Curry: There was a cut.
Ms Hughes: It was not a cut. Many councils' aspirations on total income are not met, in terms both of Government contributions and their own charges.
Mr. Curry: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I shall not give way again.
Every year, the Opposition have predicted that local authorities would act irresponsibly and introduce huge average council tax rises. Each year since this Government have been in control, councils have proved Opposition Members wrong. The increase in average council tax has fallen as a result of our additional investment.
I was surprised at the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is usually sensible, for falling into the trap on council tax. He should know that council tax rises are the result not of Government funding, but of councils' overall spending decisions, for which they will be accountable to their electorates. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about political interference, I can say nothing more than that his arguments were breathtakingly shameless and that we shall take no lessons from Opposition Members on local government matters.
Under the previous Government, local councils were battered and bruised and their money and powers were systematically removed. It is this Government who have
378
provided stable and substantial funding to all councils. This year's settlement continues our commitment to invest.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).
The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 167.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02 (HC 158), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

DEFERRED DIVISION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day.
On the motion on Social Security, the Ayes were 382, the Noes were 138, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Local Government Finance (England)
8.2 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) Special Grant Report (No. 72) (HC 159), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
To complete the picture of local government funding, we need to tackle two other issues, in addition to those covered by the previous motion. These are any substantial continuing effect on a local authority's grant entitlement arising from past changes in the method of calculating the grant distribution formula; and the arrangements to provide a measure of funding stability for other authorities, such as shire districts, not covered by the floor and ceiling arrangements.
The special grant report covers three special grants: standard spending assessment reduction grant—SSA review; SSA reduction grant—police funding review; and central support protection grant.
The SSA reduction grants deal with past changes in methodology. As there have been no methodology changes to SSAs or to the police grant formula since 1999–2000, other than some minor changes to reflect the introduction of the Greater London Authority and the transfer of nursery grant funding into SSAs, the number of authorities receiving these grants has been diminishing over the past few years. This year, only one authority remains protected by these grants—the City of London. The total cost of the grants has consequently reduced from some £16 million in 2000–01 to less than £2 million this year.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister. She said that there had been no substantial changes in SSA over the past year. Can she tell us whether there have been substantial changes over the past three years?
Ms Armstrong: I said that there had been no changes since 1999–2000. [Interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have maintained SSA methodology over a three-year period. I read to him the areas in which we have changed methodology over the past three years.
On a like-for-like basis, the grant guarantees that no shire district authority—no relevant authority—will receive a reduced general grant from central Government.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: The number of relevant authorities receiving the grant this year has again declined as a result of the more generous funding levels for shire district councils.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: Ten shire districts will receive central support protection grant this year.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: The cost of this grant for relevant authorities—
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am seeking to uphold your injunction to keep my introduction brief. However, I give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. She just said—if she looks back at her notes, she will be able to read it again—that there would be no reduction for shire districts on a like-for-like basis. Taking into account the additional burden placed, for example, on East Dorset district council, which features in the report, does she agree that a new burden has been placed on East Dorset as it now has to pay for concessionary fares, so there is not a like-for-like basis for comparing this year and the coming year?
Ms Armstrong: We are dealing with SSAs. There is no substantial change in SSAs this year. However, additional funding has been put into the settlement, in order to deal with the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are comparing SSAs on a like-for-like basis.
There are only 10 shire districts that will receive central support protection grant this year. They are listed in the report. The cost of this grant for relevant authorities has consequently fallen from more than £4 million in 2000–01 to £1.4 million this year. The reductions are reflected in the overall grant settlements that we discussed in the previous debate.
The report completes the Government's allocation of general grant to local authorities for the year 2001–02. It will help to provide stability of funding so that the authorities affected can plan ahead for better service delivery. It is therefore an important part of our commitment to public services. I commend the special grant report to the House.
8.7 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: As the Minister said, we are discussing special grant report No. 72, which covers SSA reduction grant, SSA police grant and the central support protection grant.
On one view, the report is narrow and technical. It deals with transitional grants for the authorities concerned. Essentially, it deals with anomalies that may affect certain local authorities.
Part of the report deals with the City of London. As I understand the position—the Minister is welcome to correct me if I have it wrong, as I am sure she would be the first to agree that, for anyone without a degree in mathematics, it is difficult to follow some of the formulae—the City of London is sensitive to demographic changes, and so may require extra grant attention at this time in the cycle.
The main issue, as far as I can see from the report, involves certain shire districts which are not eligible through the relevant mechanism for the new floor arrangement. We debated the matter earlier this evening, but the report raises general as well as specific issues.
As I said, the report is limited to specific authorities and the anomalies that apply to them. They are set out in detail. The report highlights all the distorting effects of the new floors and ceilings that the Government have introduced. It is strange that we are debating the effects on the authorities of floors and ceilings when the Government claim that there is a freeze on standard spending assessment methodology and that they are still considering the thousands of responses to the Green Paper on local government finance. It is odd that the Government are embarking on piecemeal reform of local government finance and a sticking-plaster approach—as
384
my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) described it in the previous debate—when they are in the process of thinking the unthinkable about local government finance and future mechanisms.
Comments from Liberal Democrat Members, Conservative Members and Labour Back-Bench Members in the previous debate made it painfully apparent that there is much dissatisfaction with the operation of existing mechanisms. Some local authorities are on the wrong side and others on the right side of the area cost adjustment fence. No matter how the mechanism is supposed to operate, some councils always seem to be bottom of their given league table. I do not expect the Chamber to fill up with hon. Members whose local councils are more than happy with their allocations, but plenty turn up for the opposite reason, doubtless after being lobbied by their constituents.
It is odd that the changes are to happen this year of all years, when there is supposed to be a freeze and what the Minister insists on describing as stability and predictability—as if those two things can be intrinsically good when the basis for calculating the initial figure is unfair in relation to some local authorities. There will be a clear change in the operation of the formula for some councils. The Government argue that, without some change, the existing formula would result in, to paraphrase the Minister, an unacceptably wide range of outcomes next year. Some authorities, especially in the south-east and London, would receive larger increases because of population movements and higher living costs. Hence the Government have devised a system of floors and ceilings on grant increases for authorities with responsibilities for education and social services.
The minimum floor increase for an individual authority will be 3.2 per cent., and the maximum ceiling will be 6.5 per cent., as the Minister said earlier. The debate is about authorities other than the City of London precisely because they do not provide education or social services. Left to themselves, they would not benefit—if that is the right word—from the new ceilings and floors. In a nutshell, that is the theme of the report.
However, neither the report nor the Minister explained why the Government believe that the system should be introduced now. As hon. Members know from the previous debate, we have three basic objections to the introduction of ceilings and floors at this stage. First, they distort a system that is already complex. A constant theme of such debates is the difficulty of understanding the formulae. It is no good Ministers complaining about the complexity of the system and the difficulty of explaining it to the taxpaying public—I presume that that is why they are considering other methods of calculating the amounts that local councils should spend—while simultaneously introducing an extra distortion to the system.
Secondly, the Government were presented with statistics, especially the new earnings data, for many authorities in the south-east and London, which suggested a substantial increase in the area cost adjustment. That is why they face a difficulty this year. Whatever the arguments for or against that mechanism, whether it is good or bad—
Mr. David Drew: Bad.
Mr. Waterson: I hear cries of "bad", and I appreciate that we are holding a genuine cross-party debate. Opinions depend on the area that one represents. In East Sussex, we believe that the area cost adjustment is good.
Mr. David Kidney: Now that the hon. Gentleman has had a little more time to think about it, will he outline Conservative party policy on the future of the area cost adjustment? He appears to like it. What is his party's view?
Mr. Waterson: In East Sussex, we like the area cost adjustment, because we happen to benefit from it. I understand why the hon. Gentleman takes the opposite view.
I repeat that we will wait and see the sort of mess in local government finance that we inherit after the general election before we make up our minds. The hon. Member for Stafford and I agree that once a mechanism such as the area cost adjustment is in place, people become dependent on it. It is difficult to wean people off such measures, and they become part of the system.
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend made a pertinent remark about the complexity of the formulae. Does he agree that it would be revealing if Ministers were obliged to go into an examination room to answer questions of which they had no advance knowledge, about the function and implementation of section 88B(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, with no guidance from their officials, and declare the results to the public?
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point if I only knew what it was. He reminds us clearly and eloquently of the sheer complexity of the formulae. I am sure that we jobbing politicians all rightly rely on officials when we become Ministers. Many Conservative Members are looking forward to that experience in two or three months. However, we will rely more on officials for guidance on local government finance than for any other subject.
At least Conservative Ministers tried; they saw a constant stream of delegations about local government finance. I have taken delegations from Eastbourne and I am sure that other hon. Members from all parties have done that for their local councils. The Labour Government are much less willing to receive delegations from councils. I do not claim that our Ministers always gave councils the answers that they wanted to hear, but at least they were prepared to listen and to take account of people's comments.
I was making a point about reflecting the real costs to councils. If costs have genuinely increased in a specific local authority area, they should be reflected in the area cost adjustment, as long as that system remains.
As the hon. Member for Stafford pointed out in slightly unguarded but acutely observed correspondence, most local authorities will lose out. A few will benefit from the floors while 12 will suffer from the ceilings. I suspect that the Government are simply trying out a new weapon. However, the mass of local authorities in the middle will continue to lose out because of the mechanism. I challenge Ministers to challenge that statement. We will watch future developments with great interest.
Mr. Kidney: For the hon. Gentleman's information, as a result of the Government's announcement about changes
386
since the provisional settlement was announced to the House, Staffordshire will not lose out because of the floor provisions. The extra money that it now receives takes it back past the amount that it gave up under the floor provision. We are not losing out in Staffordshire.
Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to hear it. No doubt the Government are hoping that that will save the hon. Gentleman's seat and others in the area, although I somehow doubt that it will be enough.
I shall finish on our general worries about the floors and ceilings concept, particularly the fact that it is being introduced at this stage, when we are meant to be having a freeze on any such changes. The Local Government Association Conservative group, which is well on its way to being the dominant group in the Local Government Association, states:
The LGA Conservative Group is strongly opposed to the proposal to introduce grant ceilings. There seems little point in having an elaborate system of SSAs, dependent on the collection of large quantities of data, if that data is subsequently ignored because it does not suit the Government.
That is the truth behind all this. We find the proposals in the document as objectionable, in many ways, as those in the earlier document because they bring in the idea of floors and ceilings. Having said that, although we voted against the earlier report, it is not my intention—subject to how the debate develops—to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the Special Grant Report No. 72.
8.21 pm
Mr. Eric Insley: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the report.
I want to follow the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about floors and ceilings. I was surprised, when reading the report, to find that my local authority did not come within the SSA reduction grant, in view of the 1991 census information. I recall speaking in previous debates on this issue, and drawing attention to the fact that, even with the changes that had taken place, we lost revenue support grant in the same way that we have under this settlement. In this case, we have lost revenue support grant through data losses.
The report relates mainly to ceilings and floors. My local authority, Barnsley, is at the floor level of settlements throughout the country. It received a 3.2 per cent. increase in revenue support grant, which is at the lower end of the scale. I appreciate that other amounts of money have been received in relation to the neighbourhood renewal fund and to education. Unfortunately, those amounts of money are not adequate to address the problems that we face as a result of the low settlement..
There are restrictions on how the neighbourhood renewal fund money can be used. It cannot simply be transferred across into other sectors, in which my local authority is currently struggling to meet its responsibilities. In fact, Barnsley remains 30th out of the 36 metropolitan authorities in terms of its level of RSG funding. The data changes, and the area cost adjustment factors, have resulted in a loss of some £2.2 million, and the ceilings and floors have resulted in a further loss of some £100,000.
As for the additional moneys from the Department for Education and Employment, Barnsley received £180,000 of the total, while neighbouring Doncaster received about

387
£880,000. That equates to about 79p a head for Barnsley, compared to an average of £2.63 a head across all the metropolitan authorities. Once again, we appear to have come off badly regarding all the extra funding that the Government have provided.
The effect on Barnsley's budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) pointed out, is that it will lose £11 million over the next two years. That is nothing new for our local authority. because it has faced many cuts since the SSA methodology was introduced in 1990. It was capped in 1990, together with 19 other authorities, one third of which were in coal-mining areas. The SSA methodology simply does not address the difficulties of coal-mining villages, because they are always equated with rather nice villages with duck ponds and village greens, which are doing quite well. We tend to lose out as a result.
There will undoubtedly be redundancies in Barnsley as a result of the settlement. The local authority has already issued compulsory redundancy notices to the employment department. That will obviously cause some difficulty, in particular because the local authority does not have the money to fund the redundancies that are being imposed on it as a consequence of the local government settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough asked whether the Government would consider a supplementary credit approval for £1.8 million, to cover the difficulties that the local authority will encounter in funding those redundancies and employment cuts. My hon. Friend mentioned that the job losses could be equivalent to about 225 full-time posts. The local authority has issued an HR1 notice that calls for 450 redundancies. That is a substantial number of job losses.
The methodology used for the ceilings and floors is rather flawed, as was mentioned earlier. The proposals rely on the scheme being self-financing, which has the perverse effect of penalising those authorities that have already lost resources through data changes. Authorities such as mine have, therefore, lost twice: once through the data changes, and again through the ceilings and floors mechanism.
Ms Armstrong: There are one or two misapprehensions about this matter. My hon. Friend's local authority will contribute to the special grants that we are debating. Those special grants are top-sliced from the settlement, and he does not, therefore, know how much his authority will contribute to them. Had that money not been top-sliced, it would have been distributed through the general grant. By opting for that system, we have simply made more open the contribution from each authority. However, instead of that contribution coming from the authority's base grant, according to the scaling factor, and the floors and ceilings, the contribution is only part of the increase that it is receiving. Barnsley is, therefore, contributing less, because we have calculated the amount using floors and ceilings, than it would have done if we had done this by top-slicing, through a special grant.
Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but we are still contributing £100,000 in respect of ceilings
388
and floors. That is simply a case of the poor funding the poorer, which has happened with previous RSG settlements.
The "other services" block, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough mentioned, is the one that seems to have been neglected. Although we passport money for social services and education and although I agree with education being a priority, "other services" funding seems to have been slightly neglected even though our local populace clearly told the local authority through the community plan that they want issues such as the environment, street cleaning and road repair, which the block covers, to be addressed. Even education and employment did not feature as a priority in the community plan survey, but factors relating to the "other services" block did.
I should like to mention housing revenue accounts and stock transfer, but time does not permit. However, such issues are having an impact on our local authority's problems in respect of the funding that it needs and best value, and a demonstration about that took place in the town only a few days ago. Although that money will not come out of this settlement, we ought to target local government funding at the areas that particularly need it.
8.30 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I have been trying to work out the simultaneous equation that leads to what Z means in Annex B, before Hansard records hon. Members as zzzzz!
Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend informs the House that he has been trying to work that out, but can he explain why, when C plus D minus A over T is not greater or equal to two times S, the grant is T into Z minus S whereas if the grant of C plus D minus A over T is greater than two times S, the grant is half TZ? Why should there be a difference?
Mr. Sanders: When I sum up, I shall try my best to explain precisely why that is. The equation is an example of, "Whatever you put in, you can get out whatever you like so long as you confuse everybody in the process as to how you got there." The Minister said that this is the best settlement ever.
Ms Armstrong: Since the council tax was introduced.
Mr. Sanders: Every year since the council tax was introduced, the Minister has been able to say, "This is the best settlement." Every year, the money going into local government increases, so there is no lie there. The problem is that the extra money does not always meet the costs incurred on the ground by different local authorities. That is why we have formulae and why we have floors and ceilings. However, the floors and ceilings that we have been debating represent an admission that the data on which the standard spending assessment are based are out of date and, for some authorities, almost meaningless.
In effect, whatever controls the Treasury determines decide who wins and who loses in each year's settlement. The view of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches is that radical reform is necessary. The legitimacy of local decision making to meet community needs should not rest on the political colour of the Government in control at

389
Westminster, but that is what has happened to local government over the past few decades. Irrespective of who was in power, the Government were able to tweak the simultaneous equations to support those authorities that they wanted to support at the expense of those that they perhaps did not want to support.
It is argued that councils should be free to raise their own taxes and that any distribution grant to assist those areas that cannot raise as much money locally as others should be determined by local councils acting collectively. Before hon. Members jump up and say, "What would the Lib Dems do?", I should point out that we consider the legitimacy of local government to come from the roots—from communities themselves. Local government in this country is like a dog kept on a tight leash. The minor reforms made by the Government, which we welcome, only lengthened the lead while continuing to keep local government on a tight choke. However, if local government is the dog, the SSA system and the damping arrangements are the dog's breakfast.
Those authorities that missed out in the past continue to miss out. Historically, low-spending authorities face the double-edged dilemma of having to cut services while increasing council tax as the Government tell them that they have never had it so good. More money is given to local government year after year, but something does not add up. Surely if the grant regime was fair and if central Government believed in local government, council tax would not have to rise at three times the rate of inflation.
The truth is contained in the pre-Budget book, under the heading relating to central Government receipts. Apparently, in the next financial year what Government coffers receive from council tax will rise by 6.9 per cent. That is remarkably close to what the average council tax rise will be. By shifting the tax burden to the council tax payer the Chancellor has been able to get a pat on the back, while councillors have got it in the neck.
Central Government seem to mistrust local government. I do not for a moment include this or other Ministers in that; it is, I think, the Treasury that mistrusts local government, because it controls how much local government can spend, borrow and even, in some cases, charge for a given service. If councils want or need additional funds, they must apply for grants or credit approvals, with no guarantee of success. The shift towards money being available through competition is an incredible waste of officers' time and of local government resources, given that not all councils are able to succeed. A widespread view is that some authorities gain grants not wholly on the basis of need, but on the basis of their officers' ability to put in good applications. It seems that the skills of officers are more important than the genuine needs of some authorities.
I want to refer briefly to my council, Torbay unitary authority. A preliminary announcement by the council—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman confine his remarks about his local authority to the matter under debate?
Mr. Sanders: The impact of the standard spending assessment is factor A in the simultaneous equation. It means that my authority faces cuts of 9 per cent., and a 7 per cent. council tax rise.
The crux of the matter is this. My local authority, which is Conservative-controlled, says "We are £30 million short of what we believe we need to spend, and what the
390
SSA says we need to spend." I happen to think that that is probably the officers' estimate of what the council would like to spend, but I have no doubt that there is a difference between what Government say it needs to spend and what it has available to spend. That is having an impact on council tax rises, and on cuts in services.
Let me give one example of a service area to which that applies. Children's services spending is part of the SSA formula. Since 1998, the SSA for children's services in my unitary authority has risen by 15.7 per cent. Over the same period, spending on this service has been forced to rise by more than 50 per cent.—not because the council has chosen to increase spending, but because agencies outwith the council are referring clients to the council, and the council has no control over that.
The grant system takes a long time to catch up with the amount that is having to be spent, if indeed it ever does catch up. I strongly suggest that Ministers should be sympathetic to councils whose costs are increased, which enable through no fault of their own, in areas as important as children's services and social services enabling people to be cared for under local authority jurisdiction.
Local Government finance is too complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point very well, and I shall write to him later with the answer to his mathematical question. The system is not transparent, and in the case of some services in some authorities it is unfair. It seems that which authorities find it unfair depends on the colour of central Government.
The tax burden has been shifted from central Government to the council tax payer, and radical reform introducing a power of general competence, including fiscal competence, is long overdue. It is time that local government was set free.
8.39 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: Whoever split the debates has done the House a grave disservice. The contributions in the first debate and, to a certain extent, in this one need to be heard. The debate needs to be had in the House. I will certainly be one of those calling for the House authorities to have a further debate on the whole subject.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) does not have a similarly friendly intervention for me on the formula because I could not answer it. That is the root of the problem. I realise that we are talking about special grants. I recognise the increase in the level of settlement this year generally, in contrast with earlier years: a £3 billion, or 7.2 per cent., increase in total Government grant and a 4.9 per cent. increase in the general grant. We should not pursue the debate without recognising that positive.
I recognise, too, the extreme difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and her colleagues in the Department face in trying to satisfy every council, let alone every hon. Member. She surely has one of the most difficult jobs in government. However, I am dissatisfied with the overall settlement, including the special grant arrangements. The roots of that dissatisfaction lie in the settlement's effects on my borough, the London borough of Havering, and in the method by which central Government fund local government.

391
I should add that, prior to the 1997 general election, my local authority suffered a 1.8 per cent. decrease in its settlement in 1994–95, followed by a 1.2 per cent. increase in 1995–96 and a 0.7 per cent. increase in 1996–97. That contrasts with the four years of the present Government, when there have been increases of 4.1. 4.5, 4.2 and 6.4 per cent. this year. The average increase in the four years before 1997 was 1.5 per cent. The average increase in the past four years has been 4.8 per cent.—a significant increase.
None the less, there is an element of tinkering with the system. Councils that benefit from that tinkering have initial comfort for a number of years, but it does not deal with the fundamental flaws, as my right hon. Friend said in the earlier debate. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). To avoid the complexities of the special grant and the system generally, what is needed is a fundamental review. I was happy to make a contribution to the Green Paper. I will be interesting to read the contributions of hon. Members and others when the results of the Green Paper consultation are published.
The problem is that the settlement does not recognise historical factors, including the difficulties following the post-poll tax debacle in the early 1990s. That is when the fundamental problems that exist arose in my local authority. We can plot them from that debacle.
The settlement does not recognise adequately the area cost adjustment, or the area cost adjustment does not adequately recognise needs, whichever way one looks at it. I know that there have been a number of reviews. The Elliot report a few years back specifically helped outer London boroughs. My local authority made representations to the previous and present Governments on that point.
The current settlement does not recognise adequately the increasing demands that local government has to deal with. That is a fair point, which we often debate. We often put obligations on local authorities, but we do not properly fund them. There needs to be a review of that.
The settlement does not particularly well assess the needs of areas, certainly not of my own area. My area's ageing population, for example, is not reflected in the settlement. As an area's age balance changes, demands on social services change. A proper needs-based system should take account of that and fund the demands, but that is not happening. If that does not happen over the years, local authority finances become diminished. The settlement—in the special grant and elsewhere—also does not necessarily recognise high wage costs.
All those factors have led to the likelihood that, this year, my local authority will increase council tax by 11.5 per cent. That was the figure predicted a couple of weeks ago, but it may be decreased on the basis of this final settlement and the decisions of the precepting authorities, primarily the Greater London Authority. Nevertheless, we anticipate a council tax increase that is well above inflation, of between 9 and 11.5 per cent.
As council taxes are being increased, services will be cut. I should say that the local authority has been under that financial strain for about eight to nine years. Eight or nine years ago, however, there was some fat in the system
392
that enabled the council to cope. The local authority has made efficiency gains in service delivery in the intervening period. However, if councils have to make cuts and increase council tax year after year, eventually it becomes very difficult to deliver the improved public services which we all want. One can already see diminution in marginal services such as road resurfacing.
The borough's reserves are now well below those recommended by the Audit Commission. Consequently, it is unable to make adjustments to cope with difficulties in a particularly bad year. The consequence of that is that our constituents are affected by service cuts and a reduction in their overall quality of life.
I appreciate that this is a narrow debate on the special grant report. I believe, however, that we urgently need a review of the overall system, and I hope that the Government will begin one as quickly as possible.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. However, even without a fundamental review—which would be very difficult to conduct because of the factors that he mentioned, such as an ageing population and the fact that different age groups have different levels of need—does he not accept that floors and ceilings are a good way of addressing the needs issue? This year, even councils that were subject to ceilings still received a real-terms increase. Is not that approach also the best way of dealing with the needs of those who have essentially been pulled up to the floor?
Mr. Darvill: I broadly accept that the floors did help. Had they not existed, we would be discussing far greater difficulties across the country. Therefore, to that extent, the system must be welcome. If there is not a fundamental review of the system in the next 12 months, we will undoubtedly be considering other devices and ways of tinkering with it, perhaps by increasing the floor, to ensure that greater difficulties do not arise.
Mr. Tim Loughton: By the very same logic that the hon. Gentleman has just used, is it not clear that the many authorities that have lost out because of the ceiling will be losing not only bonus money, but money that is essential to cover additional spending on social services, flooding, best value and everything else? As authorities will now not be receiving that money, money will have to come out of spending on other core services.
Mr. Darvill: The hon. Gentleman gave the example of flooding, but I understand that financial provision has been made for it. I cannot deal specifically with the point, but I have seen in the papers various figures on provision to deal with flooding. The hon. Gentleman is undeniably right, in the sense that those local authorities will have their ceilings reduced and will therefore have to adjust their services downwards.
However, the fundamental problem was created in the broad post-poll tax settlement, when the present complexity was created. Admittedly, it is this Government's job to do something about it. Until they do, the debate on these matters will continue, as it has this evening.
The underlying message that I want to give to Ministers is that, although the overall benefits enjoyed by councils must be recognised, there are councils around the country

393
that are suffering. The delivery of services in those areas is becoming increasingly difficult. I shall support the Government generally this evening, but I want to draw Ministers' attention to my concerns in this area.
8.51 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) said that he did not think that adequate time had been allowed for the debate. I agree: I am surprised that the Minister has so little influence with the Government that she was unable to secure a whole-day debate on the matter.[Interruption.] I think it important to discuss the orders before us separately, but the Government were prepared to offer only three hours for debate on the subject of the revenue support grant for England.
When I was a local government Minister, the debate used to go on all day. Hon. Members would stand up and complain on behalf of their area, saying that they had been done down by the Government. It was traditional in those days for hon. Members worried about their area to vote against the Government, even when they were members of the Government party. I do not know whether that will happen tonight, but I suspect that the Government's agenda is to try to restrict the debate so that they are exposed to less criticism from their Back Benchers than they properly should be, given the injustice of the arrangements that now prevail.
There is a set amount of money to be distributed, and the Government's method of distribution is very unfair for some councils. I shall deal in my remarks with the case of East Dorset district council, which covers about half of the area of my constituency.
Mr. Darvill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in my contribution I contrasted the very low settlements received under the Government that he supported with the much higher settlements received under this Government?
Mr. Chope: I know that that is what the hon. Gentleman said. However, what I have to say about East Dorset will show that his proposition is not accurate in relation to particular councils. Moreover, I doubt its accuracy as a generality. The pre-Budget report produced by the Treasury shows that the Government expect the yield from council tax to increase by two to three times the rate of inflation this year. That is the same rate of increase as occurred last year and the year before that.
That means that the Government expect council tax payers to pay a higher contribution to the costs of local services than they did under a Conservative Government. That is now causing real hardship. In a written answer that I received yesterday, I was told that, in 1998–99, 6 per cent. of pensioner households were in what I would describe as council tax poverty—that is, they were paying more than 10 per cent. of their income in council tax.
Hon. Members of all parties have been concerned for many years about people in fuel poverty. They are people who spend more than 10 per cent. of their net income on fuel. I submit that it is horrendous for pensioners to have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax. Those figures are increasing, but the Government have not been collecting the data for the past year—no doubt because having them revealed would be rather embarrassing. I know from my constituency, which has a
394
large number of pensioner households, that the burden of the council tax is becoming unbearable and that increasing numbers spend more than £1,000 a year on council tax.
Annex A of the report shows that East Dorset district council is identified in part III as a receiving authority area. It will receive £51,647 as a result of this report. I shall therefore not be voting against this report because the people of East Dorset are grateful for small mercies.
Underlying that figure is the fact that East Dorset district council will receive in Government grant this coming year no more than it has received in the current year, despite having to take on extra burdens and responsibilities imposed by the Government—indeed, by this House—through legislation. I refer in particular to concessionary fares, about which I have been in correspondence with the Minister on a number of occasions. When the Government announced that they would introduce a mandatory minimum standard for local authorities in relation to concessionary fare schemes, they said that they would put aside sufficient money to meet the additional costs. I have no reason to doubt that they did just that. However, they have not distributed that money in a fair and equitable way. Not a penny of that extra money has come to East Dorset district council, so other councils are receiving money over and above what is necessary to pay for the extra burden.
Only two district councils—East Dorset and Hart—receive no revenue support grant. The Minister and the Government know that. They know that if they use the RSG as the mechanism for distributing resources when they impose new burdens on local authorities, none of the extra resources will go to East Dorset or Hart. Obviously, I am more concerned tonight about East Dorset than I am about Hart, but the principle is fundamental. The Government are imposing new burdens; they make general propositions, saying that they will fund the costs of those extra burdens out of taxpayers' money and then expect some councils to meet the full costs themselves. In East Dorset, where about 25 per cent. of the population are pensioners, that effectively means that pensioners—many of whom live in difficult circumstances—will have to pay substantial increases in council tax to meet the additional burden of the concessionary fares scheme which many of them will not wish to use.
In East Dorset, it is estimated that the additional cost of the concessionary fares scheme, even in its minimalist state, will be £150,000. That probably represents an 8 per cent. increase in the council tax in East Dorset on band D and for all households, simply on account of the extra burden imposed by the Government. Then there is the extra burden of best value audit fees, which is a particularly heavy burden on the smaller and smallest councils—an issue that has been raised on both sides of the House but has not received a sympathetic response from the Government. There are something like 300 new best value inspectors, who are being funded through best value audit fees by the citizens of East Dorset and elsewhere. Franldy, it is impossible to see any benefit accruing to the people of East Dorset as a result. Dame Helena Shovelton, who used to be in charge of deciding who would run the lottery—she has given that job up—is the chairman of the—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate concerns the purpose, needs and adequacy of the special grants.
Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that that is the issue with which I am dealing.
In the introduction to the annual report of the Audit Commission, which was published in July, its chairman, Dame Helena Shovelton, said:
"We are committed to make sure that our Inspection Service will work with authorities to help them to seize the opportunity best value brings and achieve real improvements to the quality of local services and the quality of local people's lives."
In East Dorset, the reality is that because of the burden of the best value inspection and audit system, the council will have to cut services and increase council tax. That outcome is totally inconsistent with what Dame Helena Shovelton said would happen. Another burden has been placed on East Dorset district council for which it is not getting any additional funding. As I said, part HI of the report makes it clear that it will get only £51,647.
This is a narrow issue, but it is important. How can it be fair that a council should get no cash increase—we are not even talking about an increase in real terms—in Government support at a time when the Government are imposing major new financial burdens. As a consequence, the level of service will be reduced and there will probably be substantial increases in the council tax. As a result, an even higher proportion of pensioner households will pay more than 10 per cent. of their income in council tax every year.
The Minister said in her introductory remarks that the report would ensure stability of funding. That expression will go down like a sick joke in East Dorset.
9.2 pm
Mr. David Drew: I will keep my remarks short so that as many hon. Members as possible may contribute to the debate. I will also try to keep them to the subject, which is narrow, given the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), seemed to repeat the remarks that he made in the previous debate, but I will say no more about that.
I wish to reinforce the argument that I made in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in the previous debate, but with reference to the special grant. Fire and rescue services in Gloucestershire will face particular problems because as a result of the standard spending assessment they will not be able to access the special grants. The services work with the police and ambulance service in the county. We want a tri-service emergency centre, but it will be put at risk unless we can find some additional moneys. Likewise, we are working with the fire and rescue services of other authorities in the south-west to establish a joint training centre. Both projects require special grants from the Home Office, but will be put at risk unless we can obtain additional funds to pay our contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) will no doubt point out, if he has the opportunity, that the education standard spending assessment is inadequate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House want the area cost adjustment to be removed because of its gross unfairness.
The sins of the father are visited on the sons and daughters; that is never more true than in local government, where the Government are increasingly
396
having to address, through additional direct grant, the problems that we were left with. Much as one welcomes the money, if we could sort out the formula, we would prefer to find the amounts from within local resources, so that our schools and social services could be funded more adequately without having to rely on—
Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Drew: It is only fair to other Members who want to speak that I do not give way, as I am sure my hon. Friend understands.
We need to sort out local government funding sooner rather than later. Clearly, that will not happen before the election, but I hope that soon afterwards we shall see light at the end of the tunnel—with the excellent Green Paper and the opportunities that are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out that we continue to suffer from the effects of the poll tax. Another such factor is the early retirement scam. Many of my friends took early retirement for genuine reasons—sickness or job cuts—but the Conservative Government never predicated the long-term implications of getting people off the payroll in any of their calculations. We see the effects of that in the problems with police and local government pensions; many people who left their employment for genuine reasons still have to be paid for through top-slicing. Until we can grapple with that pensions problem, we shall all be at a serious disadvantage. That is why we need to reform the formula and the funding system.
9.7 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and other hon. Members, I have concerns about the area cost adjustment and its operation in my local council—the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames—and, especially, about the need for long-term reform. This year, a short-term fix—the floors and ceilings idea—has caused hardship in many councils, especially in outer London, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out.
The ceiling will significantly affect my council. That is a shame because the council was hit in last year's settlement, when the new earnings survey figures—plugged into the area cost adjustment—worked against us. This year, when the new earnings survey figures would have worked in our favour, the benefit was not allowed to flow to councils such as Kingston in outer London.
I am disappointed that the Government continue to persist with the ceiling approach, because when I led an all-party delegation from Kingston council to see the Minister for Local Government and the Regions she listened politely and asked the right questions; today, unfortunately, we find that she has not acted. It is interesting that in today's Evening Standard, Professor John Howson estimates that London needs another 9,000 teachers. That is especially relevant, because the part of the area cost adjustment that is not being fed through because of the ceiling relates to the higher salaries that councils such as Kingston are having to pay to ensure that there are teachers in our classrooms.
Given such huge teacher shortages, I am concerned that the Government are pursuing that policy. I raised the issue with the Chancellor at a meeting of the Select Committee

397
on the Treasury. He acknowledged that London has a problem with teacher shortages, but that recognition does not appear to have fed through to the local government settlement, especially for outer London boroughs that are hit by the ceiling.
During the debate, the Minister has made several sedentary interventions. What I am about to say will please her. I welcome the fact that she did listen with regard to the homelessness issue and housing benefit. There is a point that perhaps should have been raised in the previous debate, although it is relevant to this one because it relates to "A" in the equation.
The Minister announced today that rent levels specified in the housing benefit subsidy regulations will be raised, so more housing benefit will be payable in areas where rents are higher. That will significantly help people on low incomes with housing difficulties. I see many such people in my surgery every week, so that measure is particularly welcome. In high-cost areas such as Kingston, the homeless and those in poor housing have been hit severely by the regulations, which I believe the present Government introduced as a left-over from the previous Government. This change makes it better. It certainly does not make it perfect, because Liberal Democrats would like the regulations to be abolished.
Although I welcome that change, I am concerned that this grant settlement does not help boroughs, such as mine, that are having problems with teacher shortages and with attracting teachers. Interestingly, the Kingston share of the £52 million grant is only £0.1 million. That is nowhere near its fair share. I wonder whether the criteria that have been used to share out the £52 million grant could be published, because I do not believe that they would stand up to proper scrutiny.
9.11 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I look forward to the day when we no longer need to debate and vote on special grants—when we have a system for distributing the Government's central grant to local government that is transparent, easy to understand and, above all, fair. The Government showed the way forward by publishing a Green Paper last year, which some hon. Members have mentioned and to which I shall briefly refer.
Those who say that the Government acknowledge the unfairness of the previous system of distribution introduced by the Conservatives but have been slow to do something about it are wrong: the Government have made efforts to do something about the unfairness, injustice and disparities in distribution that that system created.
At first, the Government tried methodological changes each year. That is borne out by annexe B of the report, which says that special grants were introduced partly as a result of changes to the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments for the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, among others. However, the Government found—the point was well illustrated in the previous debate by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who mentioned a change that was made in, I believe, social services that disadvantaged his council—that making piecemeal changes, even with the best of intentions, had unintended consequences elsewhere in the system because of the complexity and lack of transparency. That attempt was abandoned.
398
The Government made a second attempt to achieve fairness. They devised 21 more thoroughgoing options for change, and asked members of the Local Government Association whether they could reach a consensus on which option would be better than the current system. Sadly, they did not rise to the challenge. They could not agree, so that option, too, was ruled out.
Plan C was for the Government to suggest their own changes as a prelude to consultation, and they did so by publishing the Green Paper. The great interest in change among the public outside the House is shown by the fact that, as the Minister said, there have been 16,000 responses to the Green Paper—a tremendously high number. I look forward to hearing the Government's response when they have considered them all.
The elements in the Green Paper that I believe will do away with the need for special grants are, first, the introduction of a formal system of ceilings and floors, which would ensure that there were no great winners or losers in the distribution of central grant from one year to the next and would bring certainty and an ability to plan local government's finances.
Secondly, I look forward to the introduction of minimum entitlement for each pupil in education. I realise that that is too simplistic on its own. That is why the Green Paper refers to making adjustments for deprivation and for recruitment and retention. The key to those elements is preventing future Governments from dabbling in those adjustments for political reasons.
The Office for National Statistics will have an important role. It is already charged with developing ward-based statistics, which will help to establish factual deprivation figures. I know from my experience of serving on the Select Committee on the Treasury that the office is working to ensure that its figures on recruitment and retention are more accurate.
If the proposals in the Green Paper eventually form the new system, we will not need the special grants that we debate and vote on each year. We will then have a fairer system, and I will be able to look teachers and parents in the eye and say that we have a system that treats schoolchildren in Staffordshire as fairly as pupils in other parts of the country.
9.16 pm
Mr. David Heath: In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said that he sometimes thought it a disadvantage to have a background in local government when speaking on such matters in the House, and I agree with him. First, it creates the illusion of partially understanding the formulae used. Secondly, hon. Members find themselves making exactly the same speeches that they have made for decades past in local government and in the House, because the message does not seem to get through, and I am afraid that this subject is no exception.
This special grant report deals with the floors, not the ceilings, in the system. I can well understand why the Government think that a system of floors is necessary. In fact, it is not a new concept; previous Governments introduced safety nets—as the floors were then called—to prevent local authorities from losing money because of changes to the system. The basic unfairness of the system creates the difficulty. We argued time and again about

399
such matters with the previous Government. That is why I find it difficult to accept the comments of Conservative Members, who now proclaim the unfairness of the system that they invented and implemented for years.
By implementing the special grant report, the Minister is at least trying to reduce at the margins the enormous disparities thrown up by the system between the funding of one authority and another. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in the debate because we have worked on the problem during recent months. We recognise that we are not alone and that many local authorities, such as Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire and Northampton, are very badly treated under the present formula. That is especially so in the allocation of education SSAs, which are, after all, the key to county council spending. If the education SSA is wrong, it has a knock-on effect throughout the system and money has to be diverted from social services, highways maintenance and so on to keep schools going.
I cannot accept a system that produces a disparity between Somerset and a leafy London borough of £1,500 a year per child. We have only to calculate how much the accumulated £1,500 per child disparity is worth to realise what an enormous difference it makes to the funding of a secondary school. We know that the problem exists partly because the SSA formula does not take account of children's basic needs. We know that the area cost adjustment has a huge effect, which is amplified by other factors that have been introduced recently.
I shall cite as an example the area cost adjustment's effect on my own police authority. We discussed the police grant earlier today. No less than 3 per cent. of the 7.5 per cent. pre cept increase is down to the adjustments of the area cost adjustment. That is £1 million of spending that could otherwise go into policing Avon and Somerset, and another £566,000 goes on the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme.
Those sums are top-sliced. The Minister intervened elegantly on the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) when he suggested that we have a system under which the poor subsidise the poorer. She rightly said that the money is sliced from the marginal increases rather than from core funding, but that makes not a ha'p'orth of difference to authorities that do not receive their entitlement because of the ossification of the system, which has nothing to do with stability. It is about maintaining basic injustices in the system.
I am disappointed by the report because it does nothing to deal with the huge disparities between authorities and it does nothing to create an entitlement to a basic level of funding for children in authorities such as the one that I represent. After four years of this Government, I would have expected that entitlement to be in place. For years under the Conservatives, we argued that it should be, and we are bitterly disappointed with this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the difficulties of hypothecated funding for education authorities. That is one way in which the Department for Education and Employment tries to get round the system, but it is extraordinary that it recognises the problem but has to get round a rigid formula that is imposed by the Department of the Environment,
400
Transport and the Regions. It is time that the Government dealt with the problem and that our children had a fair deal from the funding system.
9.21 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: What a fascinating but odd debate this has been—and it is getting odder. Alas, I hazard the guess that it will not feature in the Commons sketches in tomorrow's press. Theoretically, the debate has been all about the Special Grant Report (No. 72)—a masterpiece of plain English it is not. It certainly is not a gripping and all-consuming read that is mesmerising and enthralling. I suspect that it will not reach W. H. Smith's top 10 list, even at the knock-down price of £4.10.
The first undertaking that I shall give is that the next Conservative Government will do something to simplify the nonsense that are the formulas that make up the 13 pages of the report and that have been produced all for the sake of £3 million. The two SSA reduction grants that originated under the previous Government were applied for historical reasons to the City of London, which is very sensitive to SSA changes because of its small residential population. Given that the figures were based on the census of 1991, will that arrangement continue after the new census is published this year? At what stage will that census kick in?
We are confronted with the formulas that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned. As if it is not enough to be confronted with formula B minus A over T, which extends to T(Z minus S) to ½TZ, the second formula involves B minus A over;T, C plus D plus E and T(Z minus S) and ½TZ. If that were not bad enough, the new formulas that apply to the new central supply protection grant steal the show. They refer to B minus A, but then page 13 of the report states:
3. Grant is payable if the amount M calculated under paragraph 2 is greater than zero.
4. The amount of grant is calculated in accordance with the following formula: B minus A where A and B have the same meaning as in paragraph 2.
That is all quite simple.
We understand that the formula means that 10 shire districts will supposedly benefit from the year-on-year reductions in total Government grant. Because those counties do not provide educational and social services spend, they do not benefit from the floors that we have heard so much about and to which the Minister alluded.
I readily admit that I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer, but will the Minister explain to me—other people and the House of Commons Library have not been able to—why no fewer than 103 district authorities fit the criteria for the central support protection grant, but only 10 of them will benefit from it? They range from Brentwood to Weymouth and Portland, and include East Dorset district council, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned. What about the other 93 authorities? The list starts with Bromsgrove, which received a 0 per cent. increase in total external support. St. Edmundsbury received a 0.3 per cent. increase, Tewkesbury received a 0.4 per cent. increase and Chester received a 1 per cent. increase. The list extends to North East Derbyshire. It is not clear how those authorities will benefit, although we are assured that the central support protection grant will ensure that any

401
authority that does not qualify for the grant floor will none the less receive a Government grant no lower than that which it received in 2001–01. Will the Minister explain that point?
Some interesting contributions have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out that his council will, on the face of it, be a beneficiary of the CSPG. However, he told us that the extra pensioners in his constituency are a great expense for the council and that benefits such as concessionary fares, which the authority will now have to fund, are not being refunded by the Government. The hon. Member for Barnsley. East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) was concerned that his constituents had missed out, and the Minister did not allay his fears. What the hon. Member for Torbay called his dog's breakfast speech was concerned entirely with the formula of Z.
I agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about the need for a fundamental review of the whole system. Interestingly, the 11.5 per cent. council tax increase that he foresaw is out of sorts with the Minister's figure. I agreed also with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on the inaccessibility of special grants. In my authority area, West Sussex, 72 per cent. of the extra education funding received by the county council is not for it to spend as it wishes, as it has been provided in specific grant form.
This debate has been about floors and ceilings. It is the flaws within those floors and ceilings that are yet another example of centralisation by the Government. What is the point of introducing an elaborate system of SSAs that depends on the collection of large quantities of data, if those data are subsequently ignored because they do not fit the Government's dogma? That is all part of the Government's funding fiddle.
9.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Ms Beverley Hughes): For the past hour and a half, we have ostensibly been debating the special grant reports. Of course, those reports raise a number of other important distribution issues, many of which have been mentioned.
Two specific points were made about the special grants themselves. I shall deal first with that made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). I assure him that it was entirely wrong. The grant ensures that no council receives less on a like-for-like basis. That is the basic criterion on which 10 councils qualify. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said that the inclusion of the 10 councils reflected political bias. Had he done the most basic research, however, he would have found that they comprised one Labour council, one Liberal Democrat council and five Conservative councils. Three of them are without overall control. I fail to see how that reflects political bias towards Labour authorities. If the hon. Gentleman can identify such bias, he will have to explain it to me after the debate.
The second and main issue was the problems associated with the standard spending assessment and distribution. This is an entirely vexed question, on which the three
402
main parties do not agree. The problems relate not to data, as the hon. Member for Torbay alleged, but to methodology. There is no consensus on the area cost adjustment. Indeed, the whole system is complex and is neither transparent nor understandable. Some would argue that it does not take account of the different trends that apply in different places.
The previous Government failed completely to tackle any of those problems and simply reduced funding year on year. They did nothing at all about distribution.
We have instituted a fundamental review and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out, we were grateful for the large number of replies. As the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) showed, once we start debating the matter, it turns out that every Member wants different changes that would benefit his own area. I do not blame them for that, but it reflects the difficulty inherent in the issue. I am not convinced that, as one of my hon. Friends maintained, if we introduced a new system, we would completely eradicate all complaints. I think that hon. Members would still want more for their own areas.
This year, because of the huge skews produced by applying the current methodology to the data, we have introduced floors and ceilings. I am sorry that Conservatives Members do not feel that they can support that proposal. Their basic premise was of course wrong. In the previous system, under the central support protection grant, which we have debated tonight, all authorities above the minimum contributed to the minimum guarantee. That will work in the same way in the system that we have introduced this year. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said in an intervention, the main difference is that the new system is transparent. People can see what they are getting and whether they are contributing to the floor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) raised a number of issues, but I must point out that there are no restrictions on the use of the neighbourhood renewal fund. It is intended to drive up standards in the most disadvantaged areas, and provided that Barnsley demonstrates that it is hitting the targets, it can use its extra £2.7 million as it wishes.
Although distribution is important, the real issue is the overall investment in, and the commitment to, local government. I say to Conservative Members that it is this party—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) Special Grant Report (No. 72) (HC 159), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Science and Technology Committee
9.32 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.
The motion proposes that the Commons Science and Technology Committee should have the power to meet with the Lords Science and Technology Committee. In general, Committees with analogues in the Lords, such as the European Scrutiny Committee, have powers to meet with their counterparts. All Lords Committees have powers to meet with Commons Committees. In its second report last Session, the Science and Technology Committee asked that it be given the power to meet with its Lords counterpart.
I know that the motion has the strong support of the Chairman and members of the Science and Technology Committee, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) has joined us. I am pleased to move the motion to give the Committee the power that it desires.
9.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This interesting motion, which is not without its controversial elements, provides us with an opportunity to pause and consider the merits of the approach that is suggested. I confess to a feeling of unease at what I detect as a trend, which has emerged recently, and of which this is just the latest example, for joint meetings with Committees of the House of Lords.
I want modestly to praise the Minister for doing us the courtesy, as ever he does—I wish his colleagues would do the same—of coming to the House and giving us a succinct and rather elegant exposition of why he thinks the motion necessary. I have a number of questions that I want to ask him which relate directly to this seemingly innocuous motion and to the principle behind it, which is that of a joint approach. I also have a number of practical questions that are relevant at this stage.
Standing Order No. 152, which is the foundation of our Select Committee system, states:
"Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2) of this order"—
straightforward enough, one would have thought. That applies, of course, to the Commons Select Committees, one of which is the subject of the motion. Item 11 in the table that forms part of the Standing Order shows that the Office of Science and Technology is the relevant Government Department.
We know, therefore, that the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is tasked under Standing Order No. 152 with giving its attention to the Office of Science and Technology and with examining its expenditure, administration and policy. We are all familiar with that territory, so it should not give rise to any difficulty.
404
However, I am mystified by the form of words used in the motion. Recently, we have dealt with motions referring to Joint Committees of the Commons and the Lords. The motion does not use that form of words. It rather intriguingly uses a different form of words and states that
"the Select Committee on Science and Technology"—
of the Commons, it is taken for granted—
"shall have leave to meet concurrently".
I do not want to quibble excessively or be too pedantic. That is not in my nature, as the House knows, but I am intrigued as to why the motion is framed in that way. The word "concurrently" can imply a number of different things. It can imply meeting at the same time, or meeting in the same place, or both. I am not sure that the motion is sufficiently clear to give any guidance as to what it might mean. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that when he winds up the debate.
That is the immediate difficulty—the lack of clarity for which one would hope in such a motion. The motion goes on, even more confusingly, to state that our Select Committee will meet concurrently
"with any committee of the Lords on science and technology".
I confess that I am not sufficiently familiar with the way in which the other place works to know whether—[Interruption.] I am educating myself.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: I should be delighted.
Dr. Kumar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that he does not want to quibble. That is precisely what he is doing. He is quibbling all the way. He indulges in his song-and-dance tradition of quibbling with everything, and reads into everything far more than is meant.
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The spirit of the motion—[Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful. The right hon. Gentleman is struggling, and I want to educate him. He could benefit from education.[Interruption.] As a member of the Select Committee, may I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the spirit of the motion was that we would try to make progress in the way that we take evidence. Rather than duplicating effort and wasting the resources of both Houses—the right hon. Gentleman never stops lecturing us about wasting resources, so I am trying to be helpful to him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be helpful to me. His intervention is too long.
Mr. Forth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). I hope that he will feel free to intervene again and again. He anticipated one of the later points that I intended to make. If he is patient, and waits until a little later in the evening, I will come to the point that he was so helpfully trying to make. I am genuinely grateful to him.

405
I was trying to probe the reasons for the form of words in the motion, which refers to working,
"concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof'.
The flexibility that that allows is over-generous. Although I appreciate the reasons for the motion's focus on our Select Committee on Science and Technology, which we all know, love and greatly respect, the motion's open remit for concurrent meetings,
"with any committee of the Lords on science and technology"
whatever that means; it could mean literally any Committee—
"or any sub-committee thereof",
places us in potentially difficult territory about who decides with whom the concurrent meeting will be held.
To whom will we give the remit and for what purpose? We must be clearer about that. The motion continues helpfully,
"for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee"—
the wording is again less clear than I should like. I now wonder to which Committee the phrase refers. I presume that it refers to our Select Committee communicating with "any such committee". But the Committees are already meeting concurrently. In that case, why should our Select Committee seek such communication? The motion includes several confusing elements. I fear that it has been drafted rather sloppily. Indeed, I may suggest later that the Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw it and redraft it to make it much clearer.
Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the two Committees—and potentially more—met at the same time, in the same place and took evidence before the public, the proceedings would be largely indecipherable to those attending?
Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. Before I go deeper into the helpful points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East raised, I want to cover the more mundane considerations that arise from the motion, and to which my hon. Friend referred.
On previous occasions when we have discussed joint or concurrent Committees—and I deal with both in the same way for the purposes of tonight's debate—we have rightly concerned ourselves with who presides over the Committee, the role of advisers and support staff and the procedures—those of the Commons or of the Lords; they are not necessarily the same—that will be followed. The quorum is crucial in tonight's debate. I am anxious to reach motion 7 because I really want to have a go at it. I have tabled an amendment on the quorum, and you will tell us later, Mr. Speaker, whether you have been kind enough to select it. I have become increasingly alarmed of late that the quorum that is set, especially for Select Committees, is inadequate to maintain their credibility.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the motion does not affect the quorum.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, and I regret that. I am grateful to you for pointing that out, Mr. Speaker, but I wish that the motion covered the quorum. Perhaps I should table a wee
406
amendment to it; I accept the blame for not doing so. However, I learn as I go along. It has taken me nearly four years, but I am getting there. I shall try to do better next time.
Let us consider the extent to which the concurrently meeting Committee will be able to commit the House or another place to travel. On whose budget will it draw? It may be assumed that such matters are easily subsumed in the word "concurrently", but one has only to consider the brief list of who presides, the procedures and the quorum—I shall not go into that—and the travel and the budgetary arrangements to perceive the difficulty into which we may fall by accepting the motion in its current ill defined, or undefined, form. None of those matters are, therefore, satisfactorily dealt with, and we need the Minister's guidance on them.
A more fundamental question was raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East in his intervention, for which I am grateful, and I shall characterise it in the following way simply to move the debate along. What added value shall we get from joint or concurrent meetings? The assumption seems to be growing, of late, that a joint or concurrent meeting is automatically better than separate meetings of the Committees of the two Houses. I want to challenge that.
I want to challenge the whole basis on which the motion is predicated, because it assumes that the Committees will produce better results by meeting concurrently. I am not sure that we have yet convinced ourselves of that. The two Houses of Parliament have traditionally different roles. The House of Commons has its elected accountability and its Members' responsibility to their constituents, and we are often told that the House of Lords is the repository of expertise that is often not available in this House. One could, therefore, argue that a fusion of those two elements would produce a better result. I am not sure that that would necessarily be the case. Whether it would be the case in the important, focused area of science and technology is another matter.
Dr. Kumar: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology are scientists, former scientists and engineers? They therefore complement the Members of the House of Lords in building up its progress on the issues.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman was trying to be helpful, but he has alarmed me considerably. If we are now faced with the prospect, as apparently we are, of a number of self-appointed experts sitting together concurrently, I shall be really worried. I was about to concede the point that some gifted amateurs from this House, with their elected accountability, and some experts from the other House, with their expertise but no accountability, might have provided added value. Now the hon. Gentleman has worried me, because he tells me that all the members of the concurrent Committee will be experts. I wonder whether there is, therefore, a real risk of a conflict of expertise.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: Here is another one who is going to help me.
Dr. Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman will remember the debate on stem cell research. He sat in the Chamber

407
and listened to expertise from both sides of the House. He probably also read what was said in the House of Lords on that issue. He was, I am sure, persuaded by the technical expertise and scientific excellence of the arguments put forward on the Labour Benches in explaining the issues.
The right hon. Gentleman must understand that there are sincere people in the House of Commons who have some understanding of science. We recognise his expertise, although it fails me now to describe it. Labour Members must have persuaded Opposition Members that the arguments in the stem cell research debate were worth supporting. We can take science and technology forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is foremost in that area of endeavour.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's example is a relevant one. However, there is a problem. Of course, expertise has a role to play in many debates, although one wonders how many hon. Members—particularly on the Labour Benches—who participated in the debate on the Hunting Bill have ever been on a horse or chased a fox. I do not know the answer to that, just as I do not know how much expertise they were bringing to bear.
I shall pursue the hon. Gentleman's point. I query whether it would be of the greatest value that only people with expertise could legitimately participate in such a debate.
Dr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: I will give way in a moment.
Some of the contributions made during those debates arose from passion, conviction and a sense of moral values. Therefore, my point is that we must decide the relative role that we expect the Committee to play—first in terms of expertise and/or representation and, secondly, in terms of Commons and Lords.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because there is a particular significance, which will certainly not have escaped you, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has intervened. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as long ago as 28 November 1997, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that his judgments are based not in any way on scientific evidence but on his insatiable thirst for class struggle?
Mr. Forth: Well, I am of course grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not know whether matters of class or struggle came into the hon. Gentleman's consideration of stem cell research.
Mr. Bercow: They came into his consideration of hunting.
Mr. Forth: On this matter, I shall give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
I do not want to be diverted or deterred in any way from my central and focused purpose, which is to try to bring to the attention of the House the question whether joint or, as the motion says, concurrent, meetings of
408
Committees of the Commons and the Lords would give better value to the taxpayer. That is an open question that has yet to be proven. What worries me is that, time and again, we plough on with the assumption that such an approach is better. The Minister said in his opening remarks, for which I am grateful, that the Chairman of the Committee is apparently very keen on such a development, but I look in vain for the Chairman of the Committee. I do not see him.
Mr. Tipping: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Chairman sends his apologies. I know from personal discussions with him that he is extremely keen for the motion to be passed. I am sure that he will read the right hon. Gentleman's words with great interest.
Mr. Forth: Well, I am impressed—I really am—by the Minister saying that a Member of the House who is so keen on the motion sends his apologies.
Dr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for a Joint Committee to go to Porton Down tomorrow to consider issues of great purport to many people in this nation, and perhaps even some in his constituency, than for two Committees to undertake consideration independently?
Mr. Forth: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is making the same assertion—I shall not call it a mistake. He is simply saying, as a matter of fact, that surely it is better for two Committees to travel together and consider the same issues together. I do not necessarily agree with that proposition. That is the point that I am trying to make, although it is obvious that I shall have to labour it further to impress him and his colleagues.
I put a proposition to the hon. Gentleman and to the House: the two Committees, rather than travelling together, could sit separately and under different chairmanship, use different staffs, consider the same proposition from different perspectives and reach more valid conclusions in their different ways. If that were not the case, it would be logical to merge all the Committees of the two Houses to achieve the improvement or added value that has been suggested.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The right hon. Gentleman believes in this place passionately, but does he recall that, only a matter of days ago, the House passed by 486 votes to three a motion to establish with the Lords a Joint Committee on Human Rights? I presume that he was among the three. Against such a background, does not he think that he is a little out of touch?
Mr. Forth: Well, no. The 400 were out of touch with me. I try to be consistent in these matters and I recall that I was indeed one of the three. On human rights, I argued on a similar basis and for similar reasons that I doubted the validity of the approach, as I do in this case. It occurs to me, as it did in connection with human rights—perhaps, if anything, even more than in connection with this—that the perspective that might be brought to this matter from another place could, legitimately, be very different from the perspective from which it might be viewed here, and that therefore the two Committees might reach differing conclusions.
Mr. Christopher Chope: There is, of course, a strong argument for suggesting that the Select

409
Committee on Science and Technology should be part and parcel of the Trade and Industry Committee, given that the DTI is the Department in which the Committee should interest itself. Is it not significant that tomorrow there will be a debate on a Trade and Industry Committee report on space policy? Many would assume that that was a science and technology matter.
Mr. Forth: I do not want to become involved in a discussion of that kind at this stage, because I suspect that, in a sense, the question is settled by our Standing Orders, to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. However, what my hon. Friend has said is relevant in one respect.
Let us examine the wording of the part of the motion that deals with—if I can put it like this without sounding disrespectful—the Lords end of things. It is proposed that meetings should take place concurrently with
"any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof'.
In that context, my hon. Friend's point is highly relevant. Although we can be clear in our own minds about the role played at this end of the building by our Committee, governed by our Standing Orders, real doubts must arise about exactly which other Committee will "meet concurrently" with our Committee, and under what auspices and what chairmanship it will meet.
Mr. Bercow: Is it not intellectually unsatisfactory, to put it mildly, for the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to cite a much earlier vote in support of the passage of motion 6? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members, at least, subscribe to Johnson's view that right rather than fashion should prevail?
Mr. Forth: Of course I subscribe to that view; and, much as I normally admire precedent, which I think has an important role to play in our affairs, the reference by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston simply to a vote on what on the face of it seemed to be a similar matter is not in itself conclusive.[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, from a sedentary position—I do not often report such remarks, but in this case I think it rather helpful—that it was the will of the House. Yes, on that occasion it was: as he has reminded us, 400 Members voted the wrong way and three of us voted the right way. But that concerned an entirely different matter, namely a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That, in all conscience, can hardly be seen in the same light as a very much more focused Committee on science and technology. I am sure the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would agree that such a Committee must necessarily take a very different view of things, and must have a different methodology, different procedures and different expertise.
Liz Blackman: I should be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman sought the opinions of any Conservative members of the Science and Technology Committee before speaking tonight.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that question. I hoped that members of the Committee would take the trouble to be present.
Dr. Gibson: Where is the Chairman?
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself for a moment?
410
The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) made a perfectly reasonable point. I should have been happier if, following the Minister's courteous opening remarks, Conservative Committee members had been present to show their support for the motion, and to explain why they considered it to be of value. In their absence, I must speculate, and I find myself in a difficult position. I agree that this is unfortunate, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Lady. She said, quite reasonably, that the debate would have been helped by positive contributions—in addition to those of the Minister—explaining much more fully why the proposal was a good idea. If that had happened I might not have had to speak at all, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, would have helped things along quite a bit. In the absence of any Conservative Committee member being prepared to make a contribution to the debate, all we can do is to speculate, despite the fact that the Minister did his best to give a brief outline of why the motion was to be supported.
Liz Blackman: We have very little time, but given the fact—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

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. Dowd.]
Hon. Members:
Object.

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. Dowd.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Motion made,
That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–2001 (HC 47); and

(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word `Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Regeneration (Falmouth and Camborne)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: As Members of Parliament, we are in a privileged position to see the wider view of what is happening in our constituencies. That is why I sought the debate. Few are privileged to see the big picture as we do. It is worth looking at in some detail in my constituency.
Every hon. Member knows by now, I hope, that Cornwall has major structural problems in its economy. Indeed, that is one reason that we won objective 1 status nearly two years ago, but the situation is changing and it is time that the House and the wider country woke up to that fact.
In the past, my constituency boasted the richest square mile in the world, as the area basked in the warmth of a strong tin price. One hundred plus years later, some parts are among the poorest in the country. Tin mining, farming, fishing have all suffered from a massive decline in recent years.
There can be no doubt that the latter two industries still face structural changes and difficulties. There was genuine shock and dismay when the last tin mine in Europe closed at South Crofty. People saw that as the end, but life moves on. It is now time for the county to stand up and to hold its head up high because, as the song goes, "The Times They Are A-changing."
I hope to sketch out some of the ways in which my constituency is moving forward and to tell the Government that those are areas that will need help. To industry, I say, "Get involved and build for the future." To some in the county who either choose not to look or do not look, I say, "Things really are getting better. Open your eyes and see."
Let us look at some facts. Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 33 per cent. since the general election. Last month's fall was the biggest recorded in all the Cornish constituencies. Youth unemployment has fallen by two thirds. My constituency is the industrial heartland of Cornwall. The Falmouth-Penryn and Camborne-Redruth areas both offer great potential for Cornwall's economic resurgence and are our most under-used assets.
The Government's efforts to help Cornwall have been considerable. Objective 1 status was won for Cornwall through the collective efforts of many, but critically through the intervention of the Prime Minister. Since then, the Government have committed themselves to match fund objective 1. With the involvement of the private sector, that programme could be worth up to £1 billion to the county in the next six years.
The Government have protected Cornish jobs. CompAir Holman, which used to be Camborne's principal employer, received a £5 million Government grant two years ago to help it to remain in business in the town, saving literally hundreds of jobs. Cornish Yarg cheese is produced in my constituency using local farmers' milk and employing local people. Regional selective assistance was critical in getting that scheme off the ground and the cheese on to our plates at Westminster.
412
Cornwall has assisted area status, an education action zone in the Redruth and Camborne area, a health action zone and record capital investment in our schools. A long list of initiatives is equipping Cornwall for the future. Only this week, the Government have confirmed an additional £3.6 million for Kerrier district council, including Redruth, Camborne, Penryn and St. Ives, over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund. That provision is a recognition that the area contains some of our most deprived communities. The minimum wage and the working families tax credit have started to tackle poverty pay. That is a turnaround from the past.
Cornwall had become very used to being let down, time and time again, under the previous Tory Government. By 1997, good news had become something of a shock to the Cornish system. Indeed, the tradition in Cornwall after 18 years of Tory Government is to expect the worst. However, Cornwall has always had a much-loved and unique cultural identity, and it is now constructing a new economic identity for the future, building on that cultural heritage.
I do not believe that we should turn our back on our traditional industries—far from it. Under one recent proposal, the prime sites for mining would be identified and protected for possible use in the future, when we could be confident that the industry could be profitable again. However, over-reliance on struggling industries would be myopic. We must build on traditional strengths and adapt them for the future.
There are several specific examples of what is being done and what can be done.
Mr. Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Atherton: Yes, but very briefly.
Mr. George: Is the hon. Lady aware that, today, as I understand it, Baseresult completed its purchase of South Crofty mine, although the regional development agency had proposed compulsorily purchasing the site and not to use it for mining? Does she welcome the fact that, because of the purchase, mining may continue there in the years ahead?
Ms Atherton: I also heard in the media that Baseresult may have completed its purchase. That is obviously interesting news and will be welcomed by many people in the county. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer, as I shall deal in my speech with all the different options and opportunities to which my constituents can look forward.
This afternoon, I led a delegation of representatives from the renewable energies sector to meet the new Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, although he has barely got his feet under the table. The renewable energies industry generates more than £10 million annually in the region. The hope is to increase that to £50 million in five years, making Cornwall the green equivalent of silicon valley. That is not far-fetched.
Cornwall has a rich history in the earth sciences, including the Camborne school of mines and the hot rocks project. One of Mrs. Thatcher's great acts of vandalism was to cancel the hot rocks project. Given the world's increasing search for new and cleaner technologies,

413
her shortsightedness can only be marvelled at. Cancelling that project has certainly cost the United Kingdom and Cornwall dear. Fortunately, however, companies such as Geoscience—which is in my constituency and whose representatives attended today's meeting—have struggled to ensure that all was not lost.
I want everyone to be clear about this. We are talking not about more wind farms in Cornwall, but about exporting technology and renewable energies to the millions, if not billions of people around the world who are seeking new, clean power.
Another local company, Seacore—its representatives also attended today's meeting—is developing such clean power technology through its design of offshore turbines for export internationally. The Government have been supportive thus far. I hope that their support will continue so as to ensure that a genuine cluster of companies is nurtured. A new, green energy park is under construction near Redruth, and I had the pleasure of cutting the first sod in the project. The park utilises the technology of our Cornish earth sciences.
National television often uses pictures of west-end Redruth and Camborne to depict the county's run-down aspects, but they should come and see the revamped west-end drapery stores, which for a generation were left derelict and were a town eyesore. Now, it and other parts of the town are completely rebuilt, providing new homes, jobs and communities.
I received a letter from a constituent in Camborne earlier this week. He wrote:
"The town's spirit has risen, and someone remarked to me that there is hardly an empty shop in the town. We are moving in the right direction."
He is absolutely right. The town centres of Redruth and Camborne are already being regenerated.
The RDA has massive plans for the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area. It is being suggested that the plans—currently out for consultation in the community—will mean that the area will no longer be classed as the poor end of Cornwall.
I am a member of the board working to fulfil the dream of a new community. It consists of representatives from local authorities, local enterprise agencies, the objective 1 fund, the Prince's Trust, local companies, the Government office of the south-west, and the RDA.
I am delighted that the RDA has chosen the area as one of the five top sites in the wider region. That is a sign, visible from Camborne to Westminster and all points in between, that a line has been drawn. The message is, "This area must be regenerated." The people deserve it.
That is not to say that I do not have concerns. Chief among them is that this proposal should be effectively managed and that it will protect Cornwall's unique heritage. I am concerned that the local and national consultants really do consult with local people, and that they talk to people at the local recreation centre, Carn Brea, of which I am a trustee.
I am proud to say that I reopened the centre on behalf of the trust, after its closure by the local council. The council wrongly believed it to be uneconomic, but today 6,500 people use the centre every week and it flourishes. If new leisure facilities are to be developed, I would argue that their development must go hand in hand with the Carn Brea trust and the local community.
414
There are a number of proposals for the heart of the Pool area. One company wants to mine some tin and use the mine for pumping paste backfill. We would all love to see economic tin mining back in Cornwall, but there are genuine concerns about possible pollutants from an energy plant in the heart of a community of some 45,000 people.
Another group wishes to build Cornwall's equivalent of the Eiffel tower to commemorate that great Cornishman, Richard Trevithick. Meanwhile, the RDA proposals incorporate new clean technologies, the greening of the whole area, and the possibility of thousands of new jobs. All of these schemes are out for discussion. I believe that local people, and not just those who shout the loudest, must be heard in the consultations. All the facts must be on the table so that local people can study them and make their choice.
I am talking about the regeneration of my constituency, and the focus is often on the towns. However, our villages are benefiting too. Four Lanes is a model for regeneration, as are the mining villages of St. Day—my own village—Carharrack and Gwennap. Local people are taking a lead. When Cornwall stops using such villages as landfill dumps, they will be even better.
Improvements are apparent not only in the economy and they include programmes such as sure start, which helps children of three years of age and upwards by tackling poverty before they go to school. They also include our education and health action zones, which assist our schoolchildren through to adulthood. In effect, such programmes ensure that our young people are getting the best possible start in life.
A major initiative is our plan for the combined universities of Cornwall, which builds on our current strengths at the school of mines and the Falmouth school of arts. The project has received substantial help from the Government and the regional development agency. It will be crucial in developing intellectual wealth for the county, and will generate economic wealth in years to come. I am delighted that much of the university will be sited in my constituency. The hub will be at the new Tremough campus in Penryn, while the rim or access points—such as the business school in Pool—will be elsewhere.
In the mean time, in Falmouth and Penryn, regeneration continues apace. The fabulous small boats collection of Greenwich, which is to be housed in the new Falmouth maritime museum, is growing daily. The sea will flow in and out of the building, perched, as it is, on the quay in Falmouth. I am told that it will rival the Sydney opera house. Although I feel that that might slightly overstate the case, with the magnificent Eden project up the road and the Tate at St. Ives just down the road, there is much to attract visitors to the county all year round—a fillip to the Cornish tourist industry that employs 10 per cent. of our work force.
I am hopeful that we will be able to rebuild a new Falmouth docks that will bring together companies from across my constituency involved in high-tech maritime work. Pendennis shipyard has won international acclaim as a designer, builder and renovator of fabulous yachts. It also designed and built the Lords media centre which looks like a yacht hull tipped 90 degrees.
Last week, Sir Michael Lickiss, chairman of the regional development agency, visited the Falmouth docks at my invitation and met some of those who are

415
developing plans for the future—a high-tech maritime park based on the historic docks. A feasibility study has just been completed, and everyone agrees that to do nothing is not an option. Again, it is our wish to develop a cluster of high-tech business and industry, creating quality, high-skill employment.
I hope that with a fair wind from the landowners, support from the RDA and the Government, and with all the companies assisting, we can rebuild the Falmouth docks to make them a maritime park that could be the envy of the world.
That is just one example of how skills and intellectual wealth can delivery prosperity for Cornwall. Many of the issues that the Government have sought to push forward—the knowledge economy, research and development, information and communications technology—offer so much to Cornwall. It is vital that support for ICT is rolled out from the existing concentration in the south-east.
Transport is critical to all these plans. I am very pleased that the Government have finally allowed progress on the vexed question of the A30, including its infamous bottleneck at Goss Moor. The rail network in Cornwall must also be developed. If our plans for the Falmouth-Penryn area are to succeed, we need to invest in the Falmouth and Truro branch line, serving the docks and the university. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to make her views known to companies proposing to take away our high-speed trains and send them to Wales. That is absolutely scandalous, and is viewed with dismay right across Cornwall.
We must also ensure that many of the ideas are not shipwrecked by over-zealous interpretation of funding rules. It is very important that funds are administered properly but, equally, that they reach local partnerships as quickly as possible and enable theory to be put into practice.
There are other risks, of course. Almost all these initiatives depend on the involvement of the south-west RDA, which the Tories—whom I notice are absent tonight—want to abolish. All our plans for the future would be under threat, as the money would not be there to regenerate these communities.
I have sketched just a few of the projects that are going ahead in my constituency. Change is happening apace. I am proud of what is happening—things really have got better. I am grateful to all those who have worked so hard to make the Falmouth and Camborne constituency a better place for all the people to live in.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing the debate and on the passionate and sincere speech that she made about partnership working by all the agencies, with Government, in support of regeneration in her constituency. She said much—it was like a helpful case study—about how Government mainstream policies such as back to work, new deal, training for young people and education for very young children can kickstart change. When Government mainstream policies and local regeneration policies are linked with regional and local
416
activity, and there is pressure from local Members of Parliament, they can act as a catalyst for regeneration. Significant changes can then take place.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about Government assistance and its role in the regeneration of Cornwall. What she could not mention was the role that she has played. She is well known for the assiduous way in which she has pursued Ministers—I say that in the nicest possible way, because it is what all hon. Members should be doing. Testimony to that is her meeting this afternoon with a very new Energy Minister to discuss that industry in Cornwall. She has pursued Ministers up to the highest level to ensure that her area and Cornwall in general get as much as possible—indeed, what they undoubtedly deserve—from the Government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising what the Government can do, and I put on record the invaluable role that she has played to ensure that Ministers are aware of the problems. She has assiduously pressed again and again for resources to be allocated and action to be taken.
I too am delighted that we were able to secure objective 1 for Cornwall and Scilly, which will bring in around £315 million in the next seven years. As my hon. Friend recognised, that represents a unique opportunity to help turn around Cornwall's economy. The programme has had an encouraging start. It has been only five months since it was launched, but even so projects to the value of £13 million have been approved. They include—
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Not a penny has been spent.
Ms Hughes: Many Liberal Democrat Members do not have any experience of Government or of local administration. If they had such experience, they would know that to have approved projects to that value in five months is an incredible feat in its own right—to spend it takes a little longer, but I have no doubt that it will be done and that it will be spent wisely.
Some of the projects include, in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency, the new £4 million Tolvaddon energy park for environmental technology businesses, which is under construction by the regional development agency. In addition, projects to the value of more than £75 million are undergoing appraisal. That is an incredibly fast start to ensure that all those resources get where they are supposed to be. If all those projects were approved, 16 per cent. of the European Union funds available would have been committed to projects, which is commendable.
My hon. Friend mentioned the RDA's investment in Falmouth and Camborne. As she said, the Camborne, Pool and Redruth area is the RDA's first priority for regeneration in Cornwall—one of only five such priority areas in the south-west. Current RDA commitments in the area total about £10 million of investment, including the £4 million energy park project.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions saw at first hand during her visit to Cornwall in the summer of last year work to put the heart back into Redruth town centre, including the West End stores and Alma place projects to transform derelict buildings into social housing and a new Cornish studies centre.

417
The RDA is also investing £6 million in the Falmouth maritime project that my hon. Friend mentioned, to create a major tourist facility on the waterfront, including a new flagship building for the National Maritime museum and the Cornwall Maritime museum.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) rightly mentioned the RDA involvement in the area. What is the Government's attitude to the proposals to reopen South Crofty mine by Baseresult and to the RDA's opposition to that proposal?
Ms Hughes: As I understand it, Baseresult wants initially to develop a waste-to-energy plant, using the mine to dispose of the power station ash and debris, later possibly reopening part of the tin-mining operation. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are alternative possibilities for the area—one of which was proposed by the RDA. What is important is the point made by my hon. Friend: the views of local people on those alternatives should be canvassed assiduously and should form part of the overall and final decision on what may happen at South Crony.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister saying, on behalf of the Government, that no option is ruled out?
Ms Hughes: On behalf of the Government, I am saying that we will have to see what develops. As we do so, the views of local people will be an important part of the process.
I am delighted that the RDA is working in partnership with the local authorities, the Prince's Trust and others through the Camborne, Pool and Redruth partnership board—of which, I understand, my hon. Friend is also a member—to plan strategically for the future regeneration of that area. Early proposals by consultants are currently the subject of local public consultation—rightly so.
My hon. Friend mentioned the innovative combined universities of Cornwall project. The collaborative approach taken by the higher and further education institutions through that initiative for developing higher education in the county is exceptional. The CUC has recently submitted a business plan, which—as my hon. Friend knows—has been endorsed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England as a sound and realistic way forward that it and other funders can treat with confidence. I understand that HEFCE has agreed to contribute just over £2.3 million to working capital, and has responded positively in the past two years to joint bids for additional funded student places in Cornwall.
That is another example of the way in which regeneration must be conducted at several levels in order to be sustainable and to have an impact that will continue over time. Important as jobs are, regeneration is not just
418
about jobs or about money; it is about making sure that we invest in the people of an area, providing them with the opportunities to pursue economic development.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we announced that the Kerrier district is one of four areas in the south-west that will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund to help improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health. That fund, too, will play an important part in the Government's and Cornwall's wider strategy for improving prosperity. There will be a total of £3.6 million, with just under £1 million—together with this year's settlement—to begin the process.
The Department of Trade and Industry has made 27 offers of regional selective assistance grant, totalling £8.5 million, towards an investment of more than £29 million by companies to create and safeguard more than 1,100 valuable jobs in west Cornwall. That is another important element.
My hon. Friend referred to the renewable energy industry in Cornwall. We welcome recognition that the sector provides opportunities for growth in Cornwall.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) for her support for the Wainstone power station application? That will mean a great deal to her constituents. I know that, in Devon, it will result in a rise in the gross domestic product per person of £180 a year. I hope that it will bring the same result to Cornwall.
Ms Hughes: I was not aware of that achievement, but it is an important ingredient in the development of the renewable energy industry in Cornwall. I am sure that the meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne held today will help to develop that.
In conclusion, the Government are fully committed to working in partnership with communities in Falmouth, Camborne and Redruth to deliver economic and social regeneration. As we have heard, the area is already the focus of a range of regeneration and economic development programmes. Gratifyingly, significant progress is already evident. My hon. Friend outlined the reduction in unemployment—especially among young people. Various indicators demonstrate that progress. That shows the added value that we can obtain from partnership—where Government programmes, regional and local authority activity and especially MPs, together with local people, can effect significant change. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

Deferred Division
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.
The House divided: Ayes 382, Noes 138.

Division No. 93]

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cawsey, Ian

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ainger, Nick

Chidgey, David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Church, Ms Judith

Alexander, Douglas

Clapham, Michael

Allan, Richard

Clark, Dr Lynda

Allen, Graham

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clelland, David

Austin, John

Clwyd, Ann

Bailey, Adrian

Coaker, Vernon

Baker, Norman

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ballard, Jackie

Cohen, Harry

Barnes, Harry

Coleman, Iain

Battle, John

Colman, Tony

Beard, Nigel

Connarty, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Begg, Miss Anne

Cooper, Yvette

Beggs, Roy

Corbett, Robin

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Corston, Jean

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Cotter, Brian

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cousins, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cox, Tom

Bennett, Andrew F

Cranston, Ross

Benton, Joe

Crausby, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Best, Harold

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Betts, Clive

Cummings, John

Blackman, Liz

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blizzard, Bob

Dalyell, Tarn

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Darvill, Keith

Borrow, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradshaw, Ben

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brake, Tom

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Brand, Dr Peter

(B'ham Hodge H)

Breed, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Denham, John

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

Dismore, Andrew

(Dunfermline E)

Dobbin, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Browne, Desmond

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Doran, Frank

Buck, Ms Karen

Dowd, Jim

Burden, Richard

Drew, David

Burgon, Colin

Drown, Ms Julia

Burnett, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Burstow, Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Edwards, Huw

Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

Efford, Clive

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ennis, Jeff

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Feam, Ronnie

Caplin, Ivor

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Casale, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Caton, Martin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

420

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Keetch, Paul

Flint, Caroline

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Flynn, Paul

Kemp, Fraser

Follett, Barbara

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Khabra, Piara S

Foulkes, George

Kidney, David

Fyfe, Maria

Kilfoyle, Peter

Galloway, George

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Gardiner, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Gerrard, Neil

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lammy, David

Gidley, Sandra

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Laxton, Bob

Godsiff, Roger

Lepper, David

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Leslie, Christopher

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Grocott, Bruce

Linton, Martin

Grogan, John

Livsey, Richard

Hain, Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Uwyd, Elfyn

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Lock, David

Hancock, Mike

Love, Andrew

Hanson, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Harvey, Nick

Macdonald, Calum

Healey, John

McDonnell, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

McFall, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McIsaac, Shona

Hendrick, Mark

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hepburn, Stephen

Mackinlay, Andrew

Heppell, John

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hesford, Stephen

McNamara, Kevin

Hill, Keith

McNulty, Tony

Hinchliffe, David

MacShane, Denis

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hoey, Kate

McWalter, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hope, Phil

Mallaber, Judy

Hopkins, Kelvin

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Howells, Dr Kim

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hoyle, Lindsay

Martlew, Eric

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Meale, Alan

Humble, Mrs Joan

Merron, Gillian

Hutton, John

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Iddon, Dr Brian

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

lllsley, Eric

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Miller, Andrew

Jamieson, David

Mitchell, Austin

Jenkins, Brian

Moffatt, Laura

Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

Moore, Michael

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Moran, Ms Margaret

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

(B'ham Yardley)

Jones, Ms Jenny

Mountford, Kali

(Wotverh'ton SW)

Mudie, George

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Mullin, Chris

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Joyce, Eric

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Norris, Dan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Oaten, Mark

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

421

O'Hara, Eddie

Soley, Clive

Olner, Bill

Southworth, Ms Helen

O'Neill, Martin

Spellar, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Squire, Ms Rachel

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Pearson, Ian

Steinberg, Gerry

Perham, Ms Linda

Stevenson, George

Pickthall, Colin

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pike, Peter L

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Plaskitt, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pond, Chris

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pope, Greg

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pound, Stephen

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Stringer, Graham

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Stunell, Andrew

Primarolo, Dawn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prosser, Gwyn

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Purchase, Ken

(Dewsbury)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Radios, Rt Hon Giles

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Raynsfbrd, Nick

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Rendel, David

Timms, Stephen

Robertson, John

Tipping, Paddy

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Touhig, Don

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Truswell, Paul

Rogers, Allan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rowlands, Ted

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Roy, Frank

Tyler, Paul

Ruane, Chris

Tynan, Bill

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Salter, Martin

Watts, David

Sanders, Adrian

Webb, Steve

Savidge, Malcolm

White, Brian

Sawford, Phil

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Shaw, Jonathan

(Swansea W)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Willis, Phil

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wilson, Brian

Singh, Marsha

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Wray, James

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

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

Wyatt, Derek

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bercow, John

Amess, David

Blunt, Crispin

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Baldry, Tony

Brady, Graham

422

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browning, Mrs Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Burns, Simon

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Madel, Sir David

(Chipping Barnet)

Malins, Hurnfrey

Chope, Christopher

Maples, John

Clappison, James

Mates, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Mawhinney, Fit Hon Sir Brian

(Rushcliffe)

May, Mrs Theresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Norman, Archie

Cran, James

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Ottaway, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Page, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Paice, James

Day, Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Duncan, Alan

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Prior, David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Randall, John

Evans, Nigel

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Flight, Howard

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ruffley, David

Fraser, Christopher

St Aubyn, Nick

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Garnier, Edward

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gibb, Nick

Shepherd, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Soames, Nicholas

Gray, James

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Green, Damian

Spicer. Sir Michael

Greenway, John

Spring, Richard

Grieve, Dominic

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, Rt Hon William

Streeter, Gary

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Swayne, Desmond

Syms, Robert

Hammond, Philip

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hayes, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heald, Oliver

Townend, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Tredinnick, David

Horam, John

Trend, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Tyrie, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Viggers, Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Walter, Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Waterson, Nigel

Key, Robert

Wells, Bowen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Whittingdale, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wilkinson, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Willetts, David

Lansley, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Leigh, Edward

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Letwin, Oliver

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lidington, David

Yeo, Tim

Loughton, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Luff, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Bed Blocking (Wiltshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Ancram: I am grateful for the chance to raise the subject of the deeply worrying bed blocking crisis in Wiltshire. As a phrase, bed blocking sounds dull, but its impact is anything but dull. Every bed blocked in a hospital means an operation postponed or a treatment delayed, and that is often multiplied many times during the period for which the bed is blocked. In human terms, bed blocking is a cause of fear, apprehension and often suffering. For the individuals affected, it makes nonsense of the Government's aspirations to cut hospital waiting lists. It would be a blot on the Government's record of health provision in Wiltshire even if it were unavoidable. The fact that it is avoidable means that there must be strong criticism and demands for urgent action to rectify it.
It is difficult to be certain of the total number of beds genuinely blocked in Wiltshire hospitals. Bed blocking can occur for various reasons, some easier to ascertain than others. Currently, 68 hospital beds are blocked in Wiltshire for lack of Wiltshire county council funding for residential or nursing home placements. That is a lot of beds, and the knock-on effect of 68 beds being blocked is exponentially serious.
Bed blocking is not a logistical or supply problem about beds; it is about people who cannot get into hospital when they need to, and people who are held in hospital when they do not need to be because there is nowhere else for them to go. Bed blocking is a major human problem. However, it comes at the end and as a consequence of a long row of other problems. If solutions are to be found, they have to be found right along that row.
The figure of 68 beds blocked follows hard on the heels of the county council's purchase of 54 additional residential placements with special funding made available by the Government through the Wiltshire health authority. Such is the nature of the problem that the much-needed assistance has proved a temporary sticking plaster rather than a cure.
The problem is not in the hospitals themselves, but in the Wiltshire county council social services budget. Its cause is simply that, in terms of Government financial support, Wiltshire is being underfunded and unfairly treated. The purpose of this debate is to seek from the Government short-term measures to meet the current crisis and long-term measures to prevent it from recurring.
All that my colleagues and I ask for is fairness, fair shares and an even playing field. The reason for raising the matter today is that the current situation in Wiltshire is totally unacceptable and is getting worse. Bed blocking in Wiltshire is a problem that need not occur,
66WH
and it can be resolved if the Government funding provision to the county is fair and if the balance of funding between health and social services is right.
At the moment the funding is not fair, as I will seek to show, and the result is socially unacceptable, economically nonsensical and politically offensive. It is politically offensive because people in Wiltshire see Government resources apparently being skewed away from rural areas to more Government-friendly urban authorities. It is socially unacceptable because of the stress and pressure that it creates for people whose families are involved on both sides of the blocked bed—those awaiting hospital treatment and those awaiting placement elsewhere. It is economically nonsensical because the cost of blocked hospital beds is far greater than the cost of the placement beds that currently cannot be funded.
I shall give some examples. The cost of a hospital bed is about £1,100 a week, which contrasts with the net cost to the county council of less than £250 a week per nursing home bed and less than £150 a week for a residential care home bed. Delayed hospital discharges are therefore nonsensical economics. As well as being bad for disabled and older people, that is bad for the health service in meeting its Government targets and serving the local population.
The cost of placing 68 mainly older people in residential or nursing placements is £719,785 a year. The cost of 68 hospital beds for the same people at £1,100 a week is, by my calculation, almost £4 million. The chain of causation is relatively simple. Beds are blocked because the county cannot afford to fund placements for those currently occupying the beds. They cannot fund placements because the funds are not there, and the funds are not there because Wiltshire is underfunded by the Government. The solution is to get the funding right to meet the particular needs of Wiltshire, which exacerbate the problem. I shall set out in reasonably simple terms what is wrong, and then suggest what could be done to rectify the situation.
Wiltshire county council currently spends 18 per cent. more on social services than the Government, through their standard spending assessment calculations, think necessary. At the same time, the SSA allocated to Wiltshire for social services is the ninth lowest of all social services SSAs in England. Next year, Wiltshire social services SSA per head of population is only £128 compared with the shire counties average of £148, which is £20 more, and the national average of £178, which is £50 more. If Wiltshire had the same SSA as the shire counties average, it would have £8.4 million more for social services. On the figures that I have given, it is not difficult to see that that money would go a long way towards resolving the problem.
Wiltshire social services SSA for next year increased by only 2.4 per cent. With Wiltshire social services overspending by £1.5 million this year—that is 2.3 per cent.—and that overspend being rolled forward into next year, even with an increase of £1.5 million in social services specific grants for Wiltshire social services next year, the SSA specific grant total will only balance this year's overspend. That does not allow for inflation or for the increasing number of elderly and disabled people who will need its services next year. Rationing of services and delayed hospital discharges will increase next year under the current provision.

67WH
A major difficulty for the county is that the Government take little or no account of the three cost factors that impinge on social services in Wiltshire. Those cost factors may have a separate impact on some other authorities, but in Wiltshire they cluster, so they to have a major and unique impact. First, Wiltshire is an area of high employment with high employment costs, which reflects its location along the high-tech M4 corridor and the outer London commuter employment belt. Neighbouring authorities, such as Hampshire and Oxfordshire, receive an area cost adjustment weighting of 6 per cent., which is denied to Wiltshire county council. Allocating more to other authorities through the area cost adjustment next year has cost Wiltshire social services £0.3 million against the SSA increase that it would otherwise have received. That adds insult to injury.
The Government are inconsistent in their stance on the area cost adjustment, as health services in Wiltshire are being allocated additional finance to take account of higher employment costs in Wiltshire. Perhaps the Minister will explain that inconsistency.
Secondly, Wiltshire serves a large, rural and sparsely populated area. The higher costs of providing services in large rural areas are not adequately recognised by the Government. For example, detailed calculations undertaken in the county council in 1997 showed that a team of social workers and occupational therapists assisting disabled and older people had higher costs than a team covering an urban area with the same population.
In sparsely populated rural areas, smaller service units must be established to ensure that services remain locally accessible to the local rural population, but smaller service units usually have higher costs. For example, the 31 beds in a residential care home in a village in a largely rural area had a cost per bed per week of £333 in 1999. A residential care home with 57 beds in a large town had a weekly bed cost of £232, which is more than £100 less per week. That pattern of differential unit costs was found to be consistent across 19 residential care homes of between 30 and 57 beds within the county council area. However, the higher costs of providing social services in rural areas are not recognised by the Government. Instead, it is the urban areas that get higher levels of funding.
Thirdly, Wiltshire is distinctive in having one of the largest military populations in the United Kingdom. The higher demand that that generates for social services for children and families was identified by the joint review undertaken by the Audit Commission and the Department of Health inspection of social services in Wiltshire. The report stated that
"the Army presence more or less accounted for the 'excess numbers' over and above those that might be anticipated on demographic grounds alone. The work in relation to looked-after children is particularly time-consuming, because many families have moved to other parts of the country".
The additional demand for services from the garrison towns is equivalent to the current overspend of £400,000 on social services for children and families in Wiltshire. Again, that additional cost for Wiltshire goes unrecognised in the Government's funding allocations.
68WH
The growing town of Tidworth in my constituency exemplifies the problems better than most. An enormous amount has been done in Tidworth in recent years in conjunction with the Army to provide better amenities and a more attractive environment. However, Tidworth is destined to grow. One local estimate suggests an increase in its family population of about 30 per cent. over the next three to five years. On any view, that is a large increase. The frequently transient nature of the population brings its own problems in education and in the proper provision of care for children; those problems are greater than in other areas of the county, and their impact will grow with the population. It is a truism to say that it all costs money, but the money is not there because the Government's formula does not recognise the real problems that I have outlined.
The foregoing points to the nature of the problems that give rise to blocked beds. Ultimately, it all comes down to a lack of adequate or fair funding to enable Wiltshire to meet the genuine shortfall against need in its social services budget. It does not help for Wiltshire to raid other constrained budgets to try to meet some of the shortfall. That would merely shift the hardship, not solve the problem, and it would exacerbate the sense of unfairness. We need to look for genuine solutions. We believe that they could be available if only the Government would consider them favourably.
In the medium term, the Government's funding formulae should recognise the higher costs of providing services in rural areas, the applicability of the area cost adjustment to Wiltshire and Swindon, and the costs of providing civilian services to the garrison towns, especially with the further increase of military personnel in Wiltshire that is now envisaged. More immediately, the Government could make additional funding available to social services, either directly or through the NHS, to allow all delayed hospital discharges to be tackled. They could increase the specific grants for social services for community care next year to prevent hospital-delayed discharges continuing in 2001–02. They could make a specific grant available for social services for next year to cover the costs being passed to social services that will result from the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care. It is estimated that those costs for Wiltshire will be more than £300,000. The Government should consider those suggestions carefully.
I began by criticising the Government over central funding. I have long suspected that they do not understand rural England or the special needs of a rural county such as Wiltshire. Thus, they do not understand the hardship that they are creating in such counties. I am happy to be proved wrong this morning. I have explained what the Government could do at once and in the medium term to prove me wrong. I live in hope that the Minister, who has my gratitude for listening so attentively, will understand the depth of feeling in the county about its cruelly unfair and inadequate funding. I hope that she will bring relief to my constituents and my Wiltshire colleagues by accepting our suggested solutions.
Today the Minister could signal the beginning of the end of bed blocking in Wiltshire. If she would recognise the crisis and the long-term dangers that could flow

69WH
from it, that would be a start. Wiltshire deserves a fairer deal, and I look forward to learning this morning that the Minister will provide one.
9.45 am
Ms Julia Drown: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on securing the debate. The issue is important and I am glad of the opportunity to contribute, and to put the case from the Swindon end of Wiltshire.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the problem arises from a failure to understand rural areas and from the Government's focus on urban areas. That is not correct. The Public Accounts Committee has examined what is happening all over the country. Its report entitled "Inpatient Admission, Bed Management and Patient Discharge in NHS Acute Hospitals", which was published this month, showed that difficulties such as those we are considering happen throughout the country, and there is no distinction between urban or rural areas. The problem arises in both the urban and the rural parts of my constituency of South Swindon.
Mr. James Gray: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady accept that there is a health service crisis in this context in both urban and rural areas. That is our point. However, my right hon. Friend's argument was that it arises from the standard spending assessment—which is a social services matter and does not relate to the health service. Wiltshire county council is much worse funded than Swindon borough council, for example.
Ms Drown: First, I have not said that the NHS is in crisis across the country. A huge majority of people—I hope that that proportion is reflected in the hon. Gentleman's postbag as it is in mine—receive a fantastic service from the health service. Problems exist and no doubt every day very difficult decisions are taken. However, we should not unnecessarily raise the fears of our constituents, most of whom receive wonderful service.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are problems with the standard spending assessment. They have existed for many years, under Conservative Administrations as well as under the present Government, who inherited them. However, the present Administration is studying the problem, and I shall deal with that issue later.
It is always difficult for Labour Members to listen to Conservatives talking about insufficient funding of services, because it is those same Opposition Members who say that the Government's spending plans are reckless. We hear that the priority should not be public services but tax cuts. Those two sides of the coin are not consistent. Supporting public services and calling for increased funding—I agree with that for health and social services—means supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he announces increased spending aimed at improving services for our constituents.
Mr. Robert Key: The problem with that argument is that the Government are not spending enough money on services in Wiltshire. That is precisely the point. They tell us in Parliament that they are
70WH
spending all that money, but when it comes to my constituents, they are not spending it. The hon. Lady's argument is flawed.
Ms Drown: If the hon. Gentleman examines the figures, he will see that social services expenditure in the standard spending assessment has increased year on year. I support him in saying that we should spend more on social services across the country, but he cannot deny that, year on year, more money has been spent on the health service and on social services. Over the next three years, the health service will receive the biggest ever increase in investment from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): My hon. Friend may be aware that Wiltshire county council's overall standard spending assessment has not just increased, it is above the national average. Similarly, the council's personal social services spending allocation is above the national average. That might support her case.
Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I want to talk about the title of the debate. Language is important, and the term bed blocking is unfortunate, because it makes it sound as if the person occupying the bed is somehow responsible for the problem, when he or she is not. As the right hon. Member for Devizes said, that person wants to be somewhere else: either in a nursing home or cared for at home. It would be more helpful if we were to use the term "delayed discharges" instead. That term implies that the person in hospital is suffering from the problem just as much as the wider community.
The main hospital in Wiltshire is the Princess Margaret hospital, which is in my constituency. There are roughly 30 patients there and in intermediate care beds around the town who are waiting for social services funding from Swindon borough council. That is not a new phenomenon, but it is nevertheless important, and must be dealt with. I was pleased that the Public Accounts Committee report stated that the NHS was encouraging good practice on the issue, both through targeted funding and by pushing the Government's aim of reducing delays in discharge by 30 per cent. by 2003. Clearly, the Government are trying to ensure that there are improvements in that sector.
We need to recognise that much work on this issue is being done on the ground by hospitals, health authorities and social services departments. There has been an improvement in services and relations between those bodies, and I hope that the Minister and all hon. Members present will join me in congratulating the staff of those hospitals, health authorities and social services departments on the good work that they are doing to combat the problem. They are improving the way in which they collate information about patients, and they are having weekly or daily meetings, where necessary, to ensure that they are addressing the needs of individual patients. The trusts and the local health authorities have worked together to minimise delays and to find areas in which services could be improved.
Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Lady telling us that there is no bed blocking problem in the Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon? If there is a problem, is it increasing or decreasing?
Ms Drown: I am certainly not saying that there is no such problem. I began by saying that there was a significant problem. At the moment, there are roughly 30 patients whose discharge has been delayed. However, it would be wrong not to recognise the huge amount of work that is going on locally to try to deal with the problem. For example, there have been particular pressures at winter time. I was delighted by the programme of work that the local hospital put together to tackle those difficulties. It was not simply a matter of trying to set up more beds and get more nurses and doctors, it involved all the skills of the wider NHS team. More therapists were brought in so that people could be rehabilitated more quickly and go home. Laboratory staff came in to work extra time so that tests could come through more quickly and people could be seen more quickly. A group of staff was charged with preventing unnecessary admissions. All that work is important and it is worth congratulating those concerned.
I am also pleased that Swindon borough council, with the health authority, has recently agreed to fund an additional 14 placements, which will relieve the pressure. That has not been easy because, despite an increase in the SSA and the budget in excess of inflation, which is much appreciated, both local authority and health authority funds are tight in Swindon and money has been taken out of reserves. Those reserves, which were already low, are even lower, but significant sums have been found to support people.
To return to the point about rural and urban areas, the right hon. Member for Devizes said that Wiltshire social services has already been given an additional grant this year to try to alleviate the problem. Wiltshire is more rural than Swindon, which has not received the same grant. There has been Government action in Wiltshire, and Swindon would appreciate a similar grant because of its particular difficulties.
Mr. Gray: I want to correct a slight misinterpretation which the Minister may have made of the figures for SSAs in Wiltshire. Social services SSA for the county of Wiltshire is £128 per head. The shire county average is £148 per head, and the national average is £178 per head. Wiltshire county council social services SSA is £50 per head less than the national average. The Minister's interpretation of the figures does not bear detailed examination.
Ms Drown: Those remarks may have been better addressed to the Minister, but I shall comment on them. There is an issue with SSAs. The existing formula could be improved, and I am pleased that the Government have agreed to examine that. As responsible Members of Parliament, we cannot say that every local authority in the country should receive the same amount per person because needs vary. Our own constituencies include areas of higher and lower need, and that should be reflected in the services provided in those areas. Such issues are written large throughout the country. We know that there is a link between health and poverty, and that poverty leads to poor health. Those of us in
72WH
more prosperous areas must accept that we should receive slightly less per head, but we want the services that meet our people's needs—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is trying to make a political point from a sedentary position. He is being irresponsible in not recognising that we all have a responsibility for the wider country. Members of Parliament who represent relatively prosperous areas must accept that sometimes it is not fair to claim the same amount of Government money, pound for pound, as areas with five times more unemployment and five times more poverty. Where there is poverty and ill health, the problem must be addressed, and it would be wrong for responsible Members of Parliament selfishly to press for more and cause more ill health and poverty elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a responsible member of a political party, accepts that.
Mr. Gray: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making an intervention from a sedentary position, and I shall now make it standing up. My point was that I stand here as the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire and I shall argue the case for North Wiltshire. I shall argue the case for Wiltshire to have the same funding as the rest of the country, and even to have more funding if possible. I do not stand here as a Minister. The hon. Lady is a Back Bencher and should be arguing for the same funding for the people of Swindon as for the rest of the country. I am amazed to hear her accept that Swindon should be less well-funded than elsewhere. That will be well noted by her constituents.
Ms Drown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement. If I were him, I would question my conscience. If I were a member of the Conservative party, I would question whether he should ever be in a position of responsibility. We have a duty to consider the big issues. The logical conclusion of his argument is that no money should go to overseas aid, for example, because that would take away money from his constituents. Such an argument is. morally reprehensible. Of course, I will argue for the best for my constituents, but I will always take into account the wider needs of the country and of the world because that is what we, as responsible politicians, must do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share that aim.
Swindon has enjoyed relatively generous settlements under the Government—indeed, much more generous that under the previous Conservative Administration. Our social services standard spending assessment for 2000–01 has risen by 22 per cent. compared with 1997–98, and it is interesting to look at the figures for Wiltshire. Like Wiltshire, Swindon's spending is 18 per cent. above SSA, which demonstrates the pressure on services. However, although the settlements are generous they have not kept up with demographic changes. Swindon's population, including the number of elderly people, is growing rapidly, which puts extra pressure on services. Moreover, we start from a very low base. For the first two years, we had the lowest council tax of any unitary authority in England, which was due to our national inheritance from the previous Conservative Government. Moreover, Wiltshire county

73WH
Council—of which we were once part, and which was usually controlled by Tories but sometimes by Liberal Democrats—did not invest money in services.
The same debate about rural and urban areas has taken place in respect of education, and an effective cross-party group—the F40 group—has considered SSAs. We recognise that the Government have tried to address the problems associated with SSAs. The most recent settlement introduced a policy of funding floors, which we should all welcome, because it will help authorities that are lagging behind by ensuring that they catch up with average funding levels. However, we must ask the Government to go further. In particular, we must consider partnership grants to support work on the ground in our constituencies. Reference was also made to the area cost adjustment, and it is true that that has not helped. As a result, Swindon has lost £655,000, while other authorities with similar costs have gained by such funding.
We should also reflect on the pressure on the Princess Margaret hospital, which has undoubtedly led to specific and occasionally severe problems. My constituents often tell me that there are not enough acute beds in the new hospital, which is being built thanks to this Administration. However, because of delayed discharges, as many as 16 per cent. of acute beds are not being used effectively. If we can overcome that problem and demonstrate that there are sufficient acute beds, we can concentrate instead on other services, such as home care and intermediate care, so that our constituents can have the best, most appropriate services. I am pleased to say that a recent planning application has been made for an additional 60 intermediate beds, which would greatly help in addressing this problem.
As the right hon. Member for Devizes pointed out, solving the problem of delayed discharges would mean better economics for the public purse and better health. Those who have been discharged from acute wards are less likely to get infections. Moreover, there would be a huge psychological impact on patients. In Swindon, an excellent scheme involving purchasing beds in one of our residential homes—Langton house in Wroughton—has had an amazing impact on the people who have been discharged. The doctors and nurses who discharged them from the acute hospital thought that they might not be ready to go home for eight to 12 weeks, but, simply because they moved from hospital to a less acute setting, they got better much more quickly than anyone expected. That is partly due to the psychological impact—people tend to think, "I'm out of hospital, so I must be getting better." Such schemes can really help people's health.
The Government may say that Wiltshire and Swindon have sufficient funding and should be delivering as well as the best across the country. I would respond that if that is so, in what specific respects can we do better? In some cases we can say, "X or Y should have been done," but that probably happens everywhere. I know that the Government are working on best practice across the country, but it would be helpful if we could pass such information back to the people who are working in our constituencies to try to deliver the best that they can for patients. I recognise the hard work that is being done in Swindon and congratulate those who are doing it.
74WH
The Government are working to encourage partnerships and to spread best practice. When I was first elected in 1997, the trusts were not communicating and the health authority and social services were not talking the same language—both were defending their own budgets and territories. Now, when I meet them, it is clear that they recognise that they have a shared problem that they are tackling together. That is a huge step forward.
I want to see much more funding for social services, so that we can return to the old-fashioned home help service, which is a good, preventive service. At the moment, we have only the more intensive home care service.
I appeal to the Government to consider increasing partnership grants. That would reward the good partnership work that is taking place and recognise the fact that together the staff are doing all that they can to deliver the best possible care for local people.
10.7 am
Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure, I think, to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), although I have to say that I am slightly puzzled by one or two elements of her speech. At one moment she argued that there was a crisis in her local hospital, Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon, and at the next that there was no such crisis and everything was fine. At one moment she argued that social services spending in Swindon and by Wiltshire county council was sufficient, and at the next moment that it should be more. At one moment she argued that it was reasonable that we should rank significantly below the national average for social services spending—because that allows us to spend money on overseas development, for example—but at the next that it is important that we should be spending the same. I fear that some of her speech gave out mixed messages.
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make an interesting and exciting speech, but I fear that he is not succeeding.
Mr. Gray: I have not started yet—just wait.
Ms Drown: It is perfectly consistent to recognise the good work that has been done and the fact that progress has been made, while saying that much more needs to be done.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her position. I am sure that her constituents will take careful note.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on securing the debate. We entitled it "The bed blocking crisis in Wiltshire" advisedly. This is not a small matter, to be discussed in passing, that might justify a quick local press release, but a significant crisis in our constituencies. That is why my right hon. Friend, who is chairman of the Conservative party and has several other duties to perform, has none the less chosen to give up an hour and a half of his time, plus the time spent in preparing his speech, to come to the Chamber—as have other hon. Friends from the county and, indeed, hon. Members from other parties.

75WH
Of course, Wiltshire, with the exception of Swindon, is an entirely Conservative-represented county, and I am delighted that all three of my colleagues are here today.
I should like to touch on several aspects of the crisis. As my right hon. Friend said, about 68 beds in the county are blocked, and that has various consequences. It is only the tip of the iceberg, because we believe that about 60 more people are at home and awaiting assessment. They need to be admitted to Cameron ward in Chippenham hospital because, sadly, they have dementia or similar diseases associated with the elderly. They desperately need admission to the ward, but they cannot even obtain an assessment on whether they are suitable for that placement.
There is hidden bed blocking throughout the county and people from other counties, particularly Gloucestershire, are seeking places in Malmesbury and Chippenham hospitals in my constituency but cannot get them. The bed blocking crisis is in fact greater than the figure of 68 that we heard on 19 January, when the most recent census was taken, but I shall focus on that figure.
There is a crisis in local hospitals. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for South Swindon refer to the Princess Margaret hospital. She referred to it as a Labour achievement, but it was a product of the private finance initiative, which was invented by the Conservatives. The hospital was created and planned by the Conservative Government, although she was right in as much as the new Secretary of State laid the foundation stone, turned up to open it and signed the deal for the PFI. The PFI itself, however, was a Thatcherite invention. The Labour party voted against the whole notion of the PFI for hospitals and was totally and utterly opposed to it for years. When it came to power, it decided to use that Thatcherite invention to build the Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon, among others. I do not accept that it is an achievement of this Government.
The hon. Lady seems to think that everything is fine and has stated that there is no crisis in the national health service. I fear that the Western Daily Press does not agree with her. It stated on 25 January, under the blaring headline "Hospital facing new beds crisis", that the hospital
"is once again having to use trolleys as beds as it struggles to cope and the crisis at Princess Margaret Hospital in Swindon is being made worse by a shortage of nursing home beds."
That may be wrong, and the Western Daily Press will no doubt look into it, but it certainly suggests that there is a crisis.
Ms Drown: I was trying to get across the point that there is no crisis throughout the national health service. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to raise unnecessary fears among his constituents, the vast majority of whom receive an excellent service from the NHS. I said then and I say now that that does not mean that there are not real pressures in the health service. We all recognise that.
Will the hon. Gentleman admit that, under the Conservative Administration, the health service was also regularly in crisis—to use his description? If he read the same reports on delayed discharges in hospitals
76WH
under the previous Administration, he would find exactly the same problem. Statistics on the number of people who waited on trolleys under that Administration show that the problem was the same. I should be interested to know how many times, between 1994 and 1997, he wrote to his local Member of Parliament about those issues. The problems have existed for a long time.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification. She used the word "also" and said that the crisis under the previous Administration was as bad as the one today, thus admitting that there is a crisis today. Whether the crisis five years ago was the same, better or worse than today's is academic, and I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but it is clear that she accepts the general point that there is indeed a crisis in local hospitals. To confirm that, on 25 January the excellent Western Daily Press printed another stark headline, "Surgery delayed for 3,000 people by bed blocking". There is indeed a crisis in the national health service in Wiltshire, and I am sorry that she will not openly accept that.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the principal causes of bed blocking is the uncertainty that has arisen as a result of the Government's "Fit for the Future?" regulations? They are a major contributory factor to the closure of nursing home beds.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. "Fit for the Future?" may be the result of sensible aims, but it has created an even greater crisis in long-term care. I have mentioned the Princess Margaret hospital and the Cameron ward in Chippenham hospital in my constituency. I am worried about the number of people who are there unnecessarily. The same applies in Malmesbury hospital, where several of my constituents have been affected by the closure of the long-term care home in Minety, one of the three long-term care homes that have closed recently in Wiltshire. Those people are stuck in Malmesbury hospital and are costing the nation a fortune. It is a problem for the hospital, as it is for those who have to stay in a ward where they do not want to be. It is inappropriate that they are there, but they have to be because of the crisis.
My hon. Friend referred to private homes. It is extremely worrying that a large number of first-class private homes are in deep financial difficulties. Many are deregistering as nursing homes. For example, Ferfoot, a former nursing home in Chippenham in my constituency, has now deregistered to become a long-term care home. Many homes have been left with huge numbers of empty beds. The Conifers home in Minety closed recently with tragic consequences for its residents. They received a letter on 20 December by registered mail saying that Conifers was closing down and were asked to find alternative accommodation. Many of its residents are now going into hospital. We have many fine, first-class private homes in Wiltshire and what is happening to them is tragic.
In 1999, there were 295 private residential homes in Wiltshire. We now have only 287, and the number of beds has dropped significantly from 3,141 to 3,079. The position of nursing homes is even worse. The number of

77WH
nursing homes has reduced from 71 to 65, and the number of beds from 2,296 to 2,049. That is in an area where the population is growing older and, because of its environmental advantages, people are moving in. If anything, long-term care homes, residential homes and nursing homes should be becoming larger. We need more beds, not fewer, but their number has declined significantly.
I read the excellent Chippenham Gazette and Herald and The Wiltshire Times, but the Western Daily Press provides more evidence than other newspapers. On 25 January 2001, it carried the blaring headline "Care homes at risk in funds crisis". People are stuck in hospital and care homes cannot continue. They are going out of business and the whole problem is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a vicious spiral of the worst sort.
What is happening has particular consequences for the public purse to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred. From the point of view of UK plc—the taxpayer—it is extraordinary that we are happy as a nation to pay £1,250 a week to keep 68 people in hospital who need not be there. They could be living in first-class private accommodation with, in many cases, their own bathrooms—one home in my constituency has a swimming pool—for only £250 a week or, if they need long-term care, for only £150 a week. The nation—the taxpayer—is wasting £1,000 per week for each of those 68 people. About £4 million a year is going straight down the drain for no reason other than that health service money comes from one pocket, while social services money comes from another. It is administrative nonsense and an absolute disgrace that taxpayers' money should be wasted in such a way.
Throughout the country, we are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds providing care that people do not need and that is not right for their circumstances. Such people are not in need of acute care. They need long-term care. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds providing the wrong care. I hope that the Minister will deal with such matters in her response. I suspect that not only the people of Wiltshire but the nation will be interested to hear what she has to say about what the Government intend to do about the problem.
The problem has real consequences. We are discussing not merely numbers—£4 million a year being wasted in Wiltshire—but elderly people being kept in large wards and looked after incorrectly by the wrong sort of people and not enjoying their lives or having an armchair to sit in and look out of the window at the garden. Such people are experiencing deep difficulties, and even worse off than them, it seems, are those who stay at home, often in unsuitable circumstances, around Wiltshire. The home care side has had to be reduced because of the SSA system, which I shall discuss in a moment. Such people sit at home, and their carers, who often suffer in such ludicrous circumstances, are having genuine difficulty in looking after them.
I am keen to leave adequate time for the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who I am sure has a fine speech ready. I see him nodding. We are looking forward to that speech, although it is perhaps not directly relevant to Wiltshire.
78WH
I should like to touch on a matter that lies behind the problem. We must differentiate strictly and clearly between the rural Wiltshire county council and the urban Swindon borough council. One of the unfortunate asides in the speech of the hon. Member for South Swindon suggested that she thought it perfectly sensible that the SSA and the revenue support grant in Swindon should have increased while those in rural Wiltshire have decreased. She said that that was a result of Swindon having been part of Wiltshire county council at one time, that Swindon was dreadfully underfunded, which was rotten, especially as Swindon has poverty, single mothers and so on, and that that makes it perfectly reasonable that Swindon should have more money and Wiltshire less. That is clearly what she said, and that is certainly what is happening in the rest of the country, where £30 million pounds has been ripped out of rural SSAs and pumped into urban inner cities. The Labour Government have removed a substantial amount from rural counties—Conservative and Liberal-controlled areas—and pumped it into Labour areas in the inner cities. That was my understanding of what the hon. Lady said a moment ago, but she may want to correct me.
Ms Drown: I was simply saying that Swindon has needs, and I am pleased that the Government have recognised that. We needed the funds, and the Government are right to support us by increasing our SSA over three years by 22 per cent. I am not saying that Wiltshire should receive less support, although the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that all the money should go to Wiltshire and none to Swindon. I have a much more responsible attitude to the matter, and I suggest that Wiltshire, too, should get more funds—as, indeed, it has. In 1997–98, the SSA was £48.5 million, and in 2000–01, £53.8 million. That is an increase.
Mr. Gray: One moment the hon. Lady says that Swindon's money has increased, and that that is good, and the next she says that that has not affected Wiltshire's money. The truth is that Wiltshire's money has decreased significantly. The bed blocking crisis is simply the result of that. As I said, we spend £50 a head less in Wiltshire on social services than the national average.
Ms Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I am slightly anxious that I am using up my time, but of course I shall give way, as the Minister is so charming.
Ms Stuart: For my benefit, will the hon. Gentleman remind us whether he agrees with the right hon. Member for Devizes that we should provide solutions to the underlying problem, not shift hardship?
Mr. Gray: That useful and interesting piece of rhetoric ignores the nature of the SSA system. The SSA system involves only one cake. We are not discussing increasing the Government's overall spending on local government.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Yes we are.
Mr. Gray: That shows how little the hon. Gentleman knows about the SSA system. There is a large cake, and

79WH
the system is the means by which it is divided and decisions are made about whether the money goes to inner cities, rural areas or poor people. It makes no comment about the overall size of the cake, merely about how it is divided. The Government have cut up the cake in a different way. They have pulled a comparatively large amount of money—yesterday the amount increased—out of rural areas such as Wiltshire, and pumped it into places such as Swindon. That seemed to be the point that the hon. Member for South Swindon was making.
To answer the hon. Lady's second point, I am not ashamed of the fact that I am not a Minister of the Crown or even a Front-Bench spokesman, although I am an Opposition Whip. I stand here as the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire to argue the case for more funds for my constituency. I do not have a responsibility for the poor of the nation, or for overseas development, although we would all agree that as much as possible should be spent on that. The purpose of the debate is to talk about bed blocking in north Wiltshire, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to do that. It is not about how much money should go to overseas development. The hon. Lady seems less keen to talk about her constituents than I am.
We must question the Government on the issue. I am glad that the Minister is here, and I know that she has been fully briefed, because she received the same briefing as we did from the excellent Wiltshire health authority and Wiltshire county council social services department. I hope that she is ready to answer the detailed questions that my hon. Friends and I put to her this morning. We seek two things. First, she must speak on behalf of her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to the current review of the SSA system. We need to know whether she believes that the cost adjustment system should remain in place, and why Berkshire and Hampshire receive more than Wiltshire. How can SSAs be reformed to find long-term solutions to the problems that we have mentioned?
Secondly, is Wiltshire in the same position as Hampshire county council, which last year received specific grants to sort out its bed blocking crisis? We look forward to the Minister's announcing whether she will award us specific grants this year to sort out the crisis.
I would also like to hear some longer-term, philosophical thinking from the Minister. The crisis has come about because the money comes out of two pockets—one for the health service and the other for social services. As long as that method of funding is used, the crisis will continue. Will she give some thought about whether it would be possible to amalgamate those sources and take the money from only one pocket? Only then will a final solution come about.
We have heard this morning about a very real crisis in Wiltshire. It is a crisis for nursing homes and hospitals, but, more importantly, it is a crisis for people. I hope that we do not hear a lot of political badinage. I want to
80WH
hear serious answers to the questions that we have raised, and real solutions for my constituents who are facing this extraordinary crisis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I remind hon. Members that the wind-up speeches will begin at 10.30.
10.28 am
Mr. Robert Key: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I am grateful to the Minister for her presence this morning, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for initiating this important debate. I hope that the Minister, with her usual charm and courtesy, will find answers for us in her reply to the debate, but I remind her that the system of standard spending asssessments holds no fears for me. As a former Minister responsible for local government finance, I know the ins and outs of it. When I was a Minister, in a different Department from hers, anomalies cropped up and mistakes and statistical errors were made, but it was possible to put things right. I hope that she will be able to do so.
Until 18 months ago, the circumstances in Wiltshire were serious. We had to undergo the consultation on standards in care, and it was clear that that would lead to the closure of homes throughout Wiltshire. Expecting high standards of staffing and physical accommodation is one thing, but damaging over-regulation that leads to closures is quite another.
The Inwood house residential retirement home in my constituency is a fine example of a home that is under great pressure simply because someone decided on the minimum number of square metres required per person and whether that included a loo or a bathroom. Homes are being closed throughout the country on that basis. Assisi house in my constituency closes today, having been home to 20 people for 18 years.
Last year, 700 care homes closed throughout the country, with a loss of 15,000 beds for the elderly and vulnerable. Is it all the fault of the county council in Wiltshire? I think not. It would not be fair to say so. We have all argued for a proper appraisal of the situation, and I pay particular credit to Councillor Mrs. Judy Seager, the chairman of the social services committee, and the director of social services, Dr. Ray Jones, who have worked unceasingly to try to find a solution to this problem. My constituents suffered another body blow today, as we have been told that out of the £52 million announced by the Secretary of State for Education on Monday, Wiltshire will receive just £100,000, and Swindon will receive £460,000. We are among the biggest losers on the transfer of adult education, and have one of the fastest rising school rolls. That is another instance of our county missing out.
Of course there is no problem in Swindon. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) not only lives in another local authority area but on another planet as far as these matters are concerned. Once again, the Government are sucking the tax out of Wiltshire, and stuffing it into Swindon.
Ms Drown: I know that outside this Chamber the hon. Gentleman would be far more reasonable. The fact is

81WH
that Swindon has needs, which the Government are right to address. I hope that he, as a reasonable politician, will also recognise those needs.
Mr. Key: The hon. Lady has only been in the House for five minutes. Indeed, she has only been in Wiltshire for five minutes. Some of us have lived in Wiltshire most of our lives, as well as representing it. She will know that there has been a problem in Wiltshire long before Swindon had its own local authority. I do not want to digress, however, as we are very short of time.
One or two further points need to be made. The county and the health authority are working hard together to find solutions. Let me outline the practical impact on my constituents. Total delayed discharges in Salisbury district hospital are 45, which means 45 bed blockers. Of those, Wiltshire is responsible for 35, Hampshire for five, Dorset for three and others for two. The total number of bed days used by those 45 people is 3,384. The average length of stay is 75 days. General medical average length of stay is four days. Out of those 45 patients, 42 are more than 75 years of age. The mean average age of admission in Salisbury of the over-75 age group is 84 years. We are therefore discussing very elderly and vulnerable people. The delayed discharge rate—the number of people delayed in hospital per 1,000 over 75 years of age, which is a standard health service method of measurement—is 2.5, against a rate of 1.52 for England as a whole. We received news this week that a local deal has been done for lifetime placements, and the local NHS trust and county council social services will find the money for another 10 out of those 45. Therefore, 35 people will still be where they should not be.
The opportunity cost is huge. During the past financial year, bed blockers in my local hospital have meant that 2,920 operations have not been performed. If the county council is forced to continue without any further help, next year there will be 5,840 cancelled operations in my district hospital. That is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of this problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has enumerated some of the available solutions.
I want to stress the impact that the military has on the area. At my end of the county, there is a serious problem. The military are funded by the national health service as well as through defence medical services, but an increasing burden is being put on local services, especially by project Allenby, which will make the local garrisons the biggest garrisons in the country. That has a huge impact on health provision. If accidents happen on the Salisbury plain training area, the casualties do not all go off to the military hospital in Haslar, but to the accident and emergency unit, spinal unit and burns unit at Salisbury district hospital. That is another significant factor.
The crisis is of the Government's own making. As my right hon. Friend so decisively argued, the facts are beyond dispute. There were never such problems under a Conservative Government. The Liberal Democrats in Salisbury have exercised their full intellectual rigour and political clout and suggested that people write to them to complain. A fat lot of use that will be. The issue requires real politics at Westminster.
Sir Humphrey and Bernard could not have produced a finer script than what we have been presented with in Wiltshire. It would run like this: "First, Minister, you
82WH
must close the care homes. Then you must apply a funding formula for the county council which makes its job impossible and wastes millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. Next, you should set targets for the Salisbury district hospital that will force it into deficit, block beds and threaten the community with the loss of thousands of operations. Then, Minister, you must issue the threat of red lighting on 1 April. That will lead to direct rule from Whitehall, with a Minister directly in charge of what happens in Wiltshire. That is just a couple of months away. That, Minister, is Labour reality." What a flagship NHS policy that is. The Minister should be proud of it. I cannot wait for the next general election.
10. 35 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is to be congratulated on securing the debate, which raises serious questions. Perhaps the issues that we have been discussing affecting Wiltshire are a microcosm of the problems confronted every day by directors of social services and the NHS all over the country.
The example that we have heard about shows us a social services department being pressured into overspending its community care budget—at present by £1.5 million, and possibly by up to £5 million by the end of the year. We know, from surveys undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services, that the problem of over-commitment is widespread. Seven out of 10 social services departments surveyed last year considered that their budgetary position was worse in the current than the previous financial year. They expected it to be as bad, if not worse, next year.
Wiltshire social services department spends about 18 per cent. more than its standard spending assessment, so talking about increases in the standard spending assessment is deliberately misleading. Until the standard spending assessment is brought up to the right level, increases disappear into existing provision. They do not buy extra services. That is why the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) was right when she talked of a history of underfunding. The standard spending assessment locks historical underfunding in place and penalises councils that for one reason or another have been frugal or tight-fisted in the past.
Nationally, most councils spend about 11 per cent. more than their standard spending assessment on social services. As a result, as the Local Government Association found only last week, nearly every social services department in the country expects an outturn overspend this year, totalling £205 million. Those budget pressures—not just in Wiltshire—are causing care gridlock. In Wiltshire the numbers of people over 85 are increasing quite substantially. That is a cause for celebration. It is wonderful that people are living longer. However, that reality is not factored into the equation relating to the funding of long-term care. The consequence is that the number of places that Wiltshire can fund remains the same, while more people need them. That leads to bed blocking, and more people experiencing rationing and being unable to obtain the care that they need.
We have heard details of the collapse in confidence in the care home sector in Wiltshire, but that is a national problem. In the past couple of years 15,000 beds have

83WH
been lost and many care homes have closed. Will the Minister tell us why, despite repeated requests, the Department of Health has refused to publish the information obtained from last year's survey to ascertain the number of beds lost from the care home sector between October 1999 and October 2000? I am told that the survey was intended to provide an idea of councils' preparedness to deal with winter pressures. Surely hon. Members should be able to see the figures, to judge for themselves how prepared councils would be. Perhaps the refusal to publish the figures is due to the accelerating rate of bed closures.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the problems that right hon. and hon. Members have described this morning will be fixed by intermediate care. That is a short-term rehabilitation package to bring about a patient's return home. It should not be somewhere to dump people who need permanent placements in residential nursing homes. If that is to be its function, it is a con that needs to be revealed. We need to make sure that the Government do not propose that. I hope that the Government will not hide behind standard spending assessment figures, but accept that those figures do not reflect true cost pressures on local authorities.
Finally, we need to take into account what might happen if there were a change of Government. We know that the Conservatives want to spend £8 billion less on services. That would reduce funding to social services in Wiltshire by £3 million. Under the proposals of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the situation would become worse, not better. More people would be left in limbo waiting for beds in nursing homes and more nursing homes would close.
The Minister may put on her rose-tinted glasses when she makes her comments about standard spending assessments. I fear that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was wearing the same pair.
10.40 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on securing this debate. He had the good fortune or foresight to realise that this was a good week to debate bed blocking, as at this time there is peak demand for beds in the national health service, so the problem is at its peak. The Minister and I visited City hospital in Birmingham on the same day last week, so she will have seen that accident and emergency departments are not currently coping, due in part to the number of blocked acute beds to which emergency cases need to be admitted.
The debate has shown that there have been three key causes of the bed blocking problem, some of which were avoidable. We have heard about Wiltshire, but it is important to say that its case is not unique. Kent suffers badly from bed blocking. Five nursing homes have closed there, with the loss of 243 beds, and there are 225 blocked beds for the same reasons as in Wiltshire. The picture is the same nearer to me in Worcestershire, so the problem is nationwide. The possible differences and their serious consequences within one county have been thrown sharply into relief by the Wiltshire Members who have spoken.
84WH
The avoidable aspect of the bed blocking problem was the imposition of the proposals in the document "Fit for the Future?", which contains onerous regulations for the care home sector. There is some irony in that, as the regulations have resulted in the closure of many care homes and the industry being much less fit for its future. Unsurprisingly, last year the Independent Healthcare Association described them as a piece of "strident bossiness".
The introduction of standard room sizes, wheelchair access to rooms and the reduction of the number of shared rooms to 20 per cent. has had a serious impact on those who have to decide whether they can continue in business under such regulations. I accept that the Government are aware of the extreme concern that the regulations have caused the care home industry. They have climbed down on several issues: they have been prepared to reduce the standard room size for an existing care home from 10 sq m to 9.3 sq m, and have made a distinction between existing and new-build care homes, so that new-build homes will have a standard room size of 12 sq m.
It is not beyond the wit of man to realise that the care home industry is left wondering what the standards will ultimately be. That degree of uncertainty will cause problems.
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: I am sorry but time is tight and the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to make his key points.
The Government's approach has been ham-fisted, and has led to a huge loss of capacity in the system. I hope that the Government were embarrassed when the hon. Gentleman pointed out that they were unwilling to provide figures on the loss of care home beds. However, they will be aware of last year's Laing and Buisson study, which showed the loss of 25,000 beds in the care home sector. That is an enormous loss of capacity, and one of the key reasons why we are debating the bed blocking crisis today. It is quite separate from the standard spending assessment issue, which has been well elucidated.
The uncertainty caused to the home care industry by the imposition of the regulations is entirely inflicted by the Government. It cannot be attributed to the previous Administration. Moreover, the Government would be wrong to interpret that as meaning that the Conservative party is more worried about the providers of care home places than the users. That is untrue. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that the problems of those in blocked beds, those who need to go into hospital but cannot, and those in care homes that are being shut are of paramount concern to our party. The Minister will be aware that the mortality rate is exceptionally high among care home residents who have to move out of a home in which they had lived for a long time. Let it not be said that the Conservative party cares more for the providers than for the users.
Care homes throughout the country are underfunded by approximately £50 a week. In order to remain in business, some care homes are turning to the families for top-up funds. That could cause difficulties, because £50 may be a lot of money to people who are rather

85WH
euphemistically called third parties. The third party may be a son or daughter, a carer or other relative. The Government should not have allowed that to happen; they have presided over a serious decline.
There are knock-on consequences of bed blocking. I make no apology for mentioning again my recent visit to the City hospital in Birmingham; I am sure that it is as fresh in the Minister's memory as it is in mine. What I have to say is directly relevant to the bed blocking problem. The Minister and I visited a busy accident and emergency department that is not coping, despite the extra money made available to deal with winter pressures—money that has been allocated also to Wiltshire hospitals. It is no good blaming someone else for the fact that the hospital cannot cope. The hard fact is that the nation's accident and emergency departments cannot cope with a flu epidemic in the middle of winter. That is the Government's responsibility. They said that they would do something about it.
In the middle of February last year, out popped the new term "intermediate care". I asked the City hospital in Birmingham about intermediate care and about step-down bed arrangements, and I was told that it was not a reality for that hospital because it was in the midst of a crisis. Birmingham social services are as overspent as the social services department in Wiltshire—Birmingham is overspent to the tune of £14 million. The overspend in social services departments is one of the main contributory factors to the crisis that faces the NHS. That was well summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who graphically described the problem by referring to the two pockets.
The problem has not been solved because the two sources of funding are completely separate, largely because civil servants at the highest level have a silo mentality. They seem unable to talk to each other about how the problem could be solved. It is yet another example of the Government's failure to define the problem correctly and to find an answer. It was this Government who coined the phrase joined-up government, so where is it?
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on securing this morning's debate. There has been considerable confusion among Opposition Members about what is needed. Do they not want us to shift hardship cases to solve the bed problem? The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that he did not want any political answers, whereas the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was looking forward to the next election. I make no apology for saying that hon. Members cannot have it both ways in such debates. If they want a detailed response from Ministers, they must allow them sufficient time. If the members of the Opposition Front Bench raise wider issues, I shall address them, even if I have to do so outside the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned her visits to Birmingham's City hospital, so she will know that Birmingham social services received an extra £1 million to solve its problems. An extra
86WH
£1 million was given to its accident and emergency department, and the go ahead was given for a £22 million ambulatory care centre. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that the private finance initiative was a Conservative idea. It may have been a Tory idea, but they could not make it work. We are making it work.
The flaw in the Opposition's argument is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask for more money and at the same time accuse us of being reckless. They should not go down the discredited route of saying that we need to do more of the same. There has been a deep recognition that we need to reconfigure the services and work together. Conservative Members complain that the funding streams come from two sources, but that is exactly why we are encouraging social services and the health service to work together.
Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: No. I want to deal with the basic argument put by Opposition Members.
Mr. Ancram: Well answer my question.
Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman should allow me to give him an answer. I still have a few minutes in which to do so, although he may not like what I have to say. It is important to recognise that the way forward is for the two services to work together. It is no good criticising and asking about what would happen if this or that were the case. We are changing the way of working. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) expressed doubts about intermediate care, suggesting that it is a quick fix. Far from it: it is part of a whole package.
I refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation that we refuse to publish figures on the loss of beds. The Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions on 29 November that although there had been a 15,000 gross loss, the net loss was 8,600. That must be seen in the context of the 20,000 home care packages.
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: No. I want to make a little progress.
We have made a total commitment to improving public services, which we have matched with funding. Opposition Members, with their talk of crisis everywhere, fail to recognise that we are changing the services and making improvements. I should like to know how they would make improvements in the services while cutting £16 billion under their tax guarantee.
Today we have the opportunity to discuss what happens in Wiltshire. We have a responsibility to put the position in Wiltshire in context. It is no good suggesting that we should not blame the previous Conservative Government. We inherited a system with too few doctors, too few nurses and not enough beds. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he wants more beds. We will provide more beds, but to do so we require extra staff, who need training.
I shall make a brief point on the accusations about the "Fit for the Future?" proposals. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members want it both ways. We are

87WH
consulting on the best way to implement the policy. That is not a major U-turn. If they are suggesting that under the "Fit for the Future?" proposals the only measure that private nursing homes have to put in place at the moment is a complaints procedure, they are either misrepresenting the facts or displaying a total lack of understanding of what is going on.
Wiltshire has to be seen in context. We are investing more money throughout the country. From April, Wiltshire health authority will receive £408 million, which is a cash increase of £29.4 million on the previous year, and a staggering increase of £167 million on the figure for April 1997. Hon. Members should remember that that contrasts with the meagre increases in real terms of 0.5 per cent. and 1.4 per cent. that Wiltshire received in the last years of the Tory Government. The allegation that we are ripping money out of Tory rural areas and giving it to Labour urban areas is unfounded and not substantiated by the figures. Bed blocking involves health and social services. [Interruption. ] Will the hon. Member for North Wiltshire please allow me to answer his question? I shall be unable to do so if he does not listen.
We are putting investment into not just health, but social services, which are receiving more money. Under the Conservative Government, spending on personal social services rose by an annual average of just 0.1 per cent. in real terms—that is not a misprint or a mispronunciation. Under the Labour Government, spending on personal social services will increase by an average annual rate of 3.4 per cent. in real terms. Conservative Members may not like to hear that, but I am afraid that those are the facts.
Just to make my earlier point clear, for 2001, Wiltshire county council's overall standard spending assessment increased by 5.6 per cent., while Swindon borough council's increased by 4.9 per cent. Both of those increases are above the national average increase of 4.4 per cent. Conservative Members cannot turn this into a debate about rural areas not getting extra money, because the figures do not stack up. In the same year, the personal social services standard spending assessment for Wiltshire increased by 5.8 per cent., and for Swindon by 5.5 per cent. Again, both those increases are greater than the national average. As hon. Members are so exercised about local government spending, I am sure that they will play their part and spend some of their valuable time contributing to this afternoon's debate on local government finance in England.
Investment in the partnership has already begun. The social services and the NHS are working together to support the winter planning preparations in Wiltshire. Additional funding of more than £3.2 million has been provided to the Wiltshire health community. From the £63 million announced in August of last year, Wiltshire received £636,000, which is being used in a wide variety of schemes across the county, such as providing 22 additional beds for discharge and rehabilitation support in Swindon and Ridgeway Downs primary care groups.
The Tories will not match that funding, whether it is the £63 million announced in the summer, the extra allocation in November, or the special grant made to Wiltshire over the past six months. They are committed
88WH
to their tax guarantee. They should not come here and complain that services in their constituencies do not receive enough money. They do not recognise the extra money that goes into the service.
Mrs. Spelman: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: I shall give way to the hon. Lady to allow her to make just more one point.
Mrs. Spelman: I appreciate that, as I gave the Minister an additional two minutes to accommodate such interventions. I should like to place on the record that the £16 billion in cuts is a figure plucked from the air. She knows full well that we have pledged to match entirely the Government's spending on the NHS.
Ms Stuart: I am grateful for that intervention. Will the hon. Lady clarify whether her party is also committed to matching Labour's social services spending? I would be happy to give way again if she could give me an answer. The core of the debate has been that bed blocking is caused by the NHS and social services not pooling their funding. Unless the Tories match their commitment to NHS funding with a commitment to social services, their promises are empty and worthless.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister confirm that, in a parliamentary answer to me, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has refused to publish figures showing the number of bed closures in nursing homes? That is a fact, which is on the record. Will she confirm it?
Mr. Ancram: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is it in order for the Minister to refuse to take an intervention from the person who led the debate, but then to take interventions from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members?
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister is entitled to do that.
Ms Stuart: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ancram: I put four sensible and moderate suggestions to the Minister. I am looking forward to hearing her response to them.
Ms Stuart: I was outlining the whole package, and I was also making the point that the standard spending assessment review is on-going. There is a debate about that this afternoon. However, this debate is about bed blocking, and I am talking about how the NHS and social services work together. The extra packages that have been put in place in Wiltshire have led to the Princess Margaret hospital receiving an additional £408,000 for its modernisation fund. Wiltshire and Swindon are increasing spending on personal social services.

89WH
Hon. Members have singularly failed to recognise the progress that has been made. I am not saying that the system is perfect. However, the solutions we propose are extra funding in the short term and a restructuring of services in the long term, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is not a matter of shifting hardship, but of solving the underlying problems. It is a 10-year plan, and we are well on the way. Conservative Members have no solutions other than arguing over figures that simply do not add up.

Employee Rights
11 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Just before Christmas, as we approached the 21st century, Vauxhall workers woke up to hear on the radio that their jobs and way of life were threatened with destruction. Most of us outside the Vauxhall work force considered that an outrage, but those who worked there were entitled to go further and speak of devastation for their families, and of how such things should not happen in a civilised country that claims to have the rule of law and acceptable minimum labour standards.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who have worked to ensure that Parliament faces this issue squarely. Although the blunt reality is that too many Vauxhall workers have no right to information and consultation, this debate extends beyond Vauxhall to the rights of employees in general. In the main, the right to know what is going on and what is likely to affect individual employees simply does not exist for most who work in British industry and commerce.
Vauxhall workers are not the only ones to have been treated with contempt. The same problem arose at Coats Viyella and Biwater, and other hon. Members will want to raise similar issues of local concern. Britain is simply out of step with the rest of the European Union. Last week, Vivendi, the French company, held its European works council meeting in Paris. Vivendi employs some 25,000 people throughout Europe. Its employee representatives examined detailed company proposals on employment structure, employment trends and a range of other issues. Interestingly, although they were able to identify the situation in France in minute detail, no such detail could be discerned for the United Kingdom.
The right to information and consultation is a simple trade union issue. It is morally right and proper that employees should know what is going on, and it is sensible that they should demand that right; but it is also in the interests of companies to ensure that employees are properly consulted. There is considerable evidence to suggest that firms that communicate do better. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of a study that was undertaken at the behest of the Department of Trade and Industry by the Industrial Society. As the DTI itself said, all firms included in the case study asserted
"that their adoption of a partnership-based approach has helped them achieve enhanced competitive performance."
Consultation is in the interests not simply of the rights of workers, but of companies. Although I am not sure that it meant what it said, even the CBI agreed with that view, stating:
"The CBI has long supported effective employee involvement as a key contributor to business performance."
Of course, good employers already support such involvement, but too many others simply do not. Some 52 per cent. of firms that employ between 25 and 50 people offer little or no consultation to their employees.

91WH
Vauxhall was rightly condemned by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but we lag a long way behind in the international stakes.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will know that there is a further pressure—globalisation. The ferocious competition between the trading blocs is leading to restructuring, especially in Europe. Is it no essential that British workers should have the same consultation rights as workers in the rest of Europe?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. One problem that we face—not only on information and consultation, but across the board—is the lag between the rights and protections that are available to British workers and those that are available to their European colleagues. That means that, in case after case, British workers are the first to be laid off. We are an easy country to invest in, but also an easy country to disinvest in.
Mr. Llew Smith: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the situation facing steel workers in my community in Ebbw Vale? When Corus was set up some 18 months ago, I received a statement from the managing director, Tony Vickers, saying that the plant was safe and that there was no threat to jobs. Now, if we are to believe the serious press, the plant faces closure.
The sad thing is that the workers, public representatives and the Government are not being consulted and the meetings that have taken place have left the Government no clearer about what is happening. The people who work in the UK steel industry and who have built it up into one of the best in the world have the right to be consulted about the future of their plant. Not only have they not been consulted, but the management will not even tell them when the redundancies will be announced.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The Corus saga bears out everything that has been said this morning about the need to change the basis on which British employers operate. I was disappointed that Corus turned down flat the offer by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to discuss a buyout. I am not in a position to know whether that would have been the right way forward, but a company that treats its workers with contempt deserves little in the way of plaudits from the general public.
Since the furore over Vauxhall broke out, we have heard strong statements of condemnation from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State, who announced some weeks ago that he was contemplating a change in legislation, saying that more should be done to ensure effective consultation with employees. Welcome as his comments were, he did not go far enough; he was merely talking around the issues involved in collective redundancies legislation.
The simple fact is that, as in the case of Corus, the need for consultation goes far beyond the point at which redundancies are announced. It must take place during the periods when employees can make a difference to the
92WH
decision making of management. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the possibility that the present review will be inadequate unless it is cast wider.
On the EU directive, the Government have made it clear that they do not want to take that route. Like many people, I am somewhat mystified by their resistance. Some critics, such as the CBI, argue that the directive would damage small and medium-sized enterprises and that although effective employee involvement is critical to business, it cannot be legislated for. That is not a very progressive view. The CBI has stated:
"Any legislation imposing a duty upon employers always to inform and consult employees in advance…would…undermine managerial prerogative."
Frankly, we have gone beyond the days of the feudal state and of managerial prerogative being the only right that exists in the corporate sphere.
Judy Mallaber: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the issue of redundancies, does he agree that it should not be a managerial prerogative to do what was done at Coats Viyella? The DTI was notified late one night of a decision that was announced to employees the following morning, the mater having been referred to the Stock Exchange first. That decision resulted in hundreds of redundancies in my constituency and contradictory press releases during a two-hour period. There was a 13-week gap from the initial announcement until it was said that part of the company would be sold off. We are still waiting for information on how some parts of the company will be disposed of. There has been confusion throughout and a lack of information for Government Departments, unions and representatives such as myself on what is happening in the company.
Mr. Lloyd: I hope that this Chamber will condemn that use of the so-called managerial prerogative because it was not an acceptable use of the power. It may have been legal, but it is immoral and, in the long term, disastrous for British industry.
I turn to the European directive. The Government said that British company law is radically different from European law and that the one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate. I have looked carefully at what the directive would do and those arguments do not apply. The most up-to-date version of the directive provides minimum requirements on information and consultation, as is right and proper; it would be pointless without those minimum requirements. It specifies a floor of 50 employees, which is quite high. Only 2.8 per cent. of United Kingdom companies would be caught and it is arguable that the cut-off point is too high, not too low.
The directive would allow national Governments to determine what procedures were appropriate for individual nation states. It allows considerable freedom to the British Government to say that British company law is different from that in other countries. Finally, it provides considerable scope for local agreement between management and employees to be accepted as being consistent with the directive.
On all those counts, the arguments against the directive do not apply and I must tell the Minister that I am bemused that the British Government are now

93WH
accused of blocking the directive. At the Employment and Social Affairs Council on 20 December, the British Government used obscure procedural devices to keep the matter off the agenda. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to respond to that, but the real issue is that a qualified majority exists to implement the directive.
It would be a tragedy if Britain were the one country out of step with the European framework. It would be a tragedy if we turned our backs on the clear need for change that hon. Friends have described, following the terrible experiences of British workers in recent months. It would be crazy if we were accused of siding with extremists such as the CBI, whose view of the directive is so ridiculous as to put it beyond reasonable consideration.
The change is necessary—I hope that even the Opposition accept that following recent disastrous experiences—and should be introduced quickly.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in all trade and commerce, there is a need for some confidentiality when negotiations are taking place? Negotiations cannot, realistically, be conducted step by step in public. If he is saying that proper communication with the work force is necessary, what parameters of confidentiality can reasonably be imposed so that normal commercial negotiations are not blown out of the water by being played out in public?
Mr. Lloyd: Of course everybody accepts the need for confidentiality. The trade unions, for instance, know that their members have the same interest in confidentiality as management. I urge hon. Members not to construct the debate as if it were workers against the company.
I shall give an example that moves us into the absurd in terms of confidentiality. I know of a Europe-wide merchant bank—I will not give its name—one of whose non-union European works council representatives learned of threats to jobs in the bank across Europe. He could not have obtained that information within the United Kingdom set-up, and would not have done so without the European works council directive. That has nothing to do with confidentiality. It is about a basic right to know, which is provided under the European works council directive but not under British law. It is about time that British law caught up. There is no question of a managerial prerogative to refuse to give information; it is a basic human and employment right to know. I hope that the Opposition will concede that point.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tradition of consulting the work force on major restructuring has worked well on the continent? The usual procedure is to consult the work force representatives, who are well schooled in the need for confidentiality. It is not a question of immediately informing 10,000 people, but of making sure that the representatives are involved from an early stage.
Mr. Lloyd: If one looks around this Chamber, there is probably several thousand years of trade union
94WH
membership among those present. My experience is that trade unionists are well aware of the need to protect confidentiality when it affects the running and good management of individual operations and companies. My hon. Friend is right. We do not need lessons in the need to maintain secrecy when it is important. However, we do need to make sure that there is consultation, so that the workers know what is planned for them as individuals and are able to respond collectively in the best interests of the company.
I appeal to the Minister to tell us what is wrong with the directive. If the directive is adopted by qualified majority voting in June this year, as is now possible, those who stand out against it but have not advanced a strong case will look a little ridiculous, if nothing else. If we are to follow the route of national legislation, will the Minister tell us in clear-cut terms when that legislation will kick in? The current reality is spates of redundancies, such as those at Vauxhall and possibly at Corus and other big and small companies. We need to know when British workers will be given the protection that would be taken for granted in any other part of the European Union.
11.18 am
Mr. Andrew Miller: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing this debate, which is well supported within the trade union group of the parliamentary Labour party. I also echo his words of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) on the way in which she has conducted herself in this Chamber in the context of the appalling situation facing Vauxhall workers.
Many Labour Members will know that I was involved in creating some of the early European works councils, especially in the late 1980s when I had an international responsibility for the creation of the Unilever European works council, so I speak with some experience of the process.
It has been argued that consultation can have an adverse effect on markets, because of market confidentiality and so on. GM-Vauxhall told me, after the current situation was made public on Teletext, that it could not give me full details of what was going to be announced for two reasons. The first was that the workers must be told before anyone else; that was a bit sick, because the announcement was all over Teletext and the national news. The second, which was outrageous and untenable, was that the matter was sensitive in terms of the stock market. One can see that that is nonsensical if one examines the stock values of GM's traded stock over the last year. I refer to data available on GM-Vauxhall's web site, which I presume is accurate. Unfortunately, we cannot display graphics in the Chamber, so I must describe the information. A graph on the web site shows stock values for the past 12 months. Interestingly, a steady downward trend started in mid-May of 2000.
At that time—the markets are sensitive and traders knew that something was about to happen—the market started to trade heavily. In the period May-June last year, there was massive trading in GM stock, way ahead of the norm. The price continued to decline without a blip, until GM made its announcement just before

95WH
Christmas, which shows that the argument about stock market confidentiality is nonsensical. The market knew that something was going to happen. The trend began in early summer 2000 and continued downward.
I have experienced pan-European and UK works councils, and they all have confidentiality clauses. Discussions with the work force and its representatives about sensitive issues are covered by such clauses. Last night, I examined every service sector European works council. I deliberately chose a sector outside manufacturing to illustrate my point, in case I was accused of being emotive about the problems facing Vauxhall workers, colleagues in Luton and my constituency, which are inextricably linked.
In the service sector, I could not find a single works council that did not have a confidentiality clause, but there was only one case of a company having triggered it. In that case, the company had asked the works council to exercise sensitivity because a takeover was imminent. It was accepted that it was perfectly proper to give the work force the facts. The argument that sharing information with employees is damaging to shareholders does not stand up to examination and, as far as I can ascertain, there has never been any evidence for it. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. The engagement of workers adds value to the decision-making process.
Consultation is a good management tool, and consultation bodies allow management to hear news direct from the work force—the horse's mouth. The bodies can obtain information about what is happening in the company. It is a two-way trade. As daft as it may seem, the European group of trade union representatives at Unilever knew more about the structure of the company, its representatives, its product lines, volumes and predicted outputs than individual site managers in the United Kingdom. One reason why Unilever eventually caved in and accepted that there should be a consultative process on a pan-European basis was that it recognised that the work force had better information than it had and that it might be a good idea to get in on the act. There are management reasons why companies should engage in such processes.
The process of receiving early warning of what is happening in a workplace is generally a two-way trade. I can provide doubters with several concrete examples of information from employees helping the business to develop. There are plenty of examples when strategic plans shared with employees have materially benefited the way in which companies operate.
Consultation creates stability. It creates a better understanding of the overriding issues that affect the business. Undoubtedly, a better-informed work force is a more productive work force. When confidence exists in a company and employees understand precisely what is happening inside the business, the co-operative nature of such a relationship maintains productivity, even in difficult times.
Stability also helps to smooth out the process of acquisitions. It stops the short-termist approach that applies in the human resource departments of some companies when it is only discovered the following day that the company has bought another business.
96WH
Engaging the work force in such activities resolves problems. No one has a monopoly on what is good information; it must be shared openly within those forums that are represented by works councils.
Different views are being expressed regarding Vauxhall and information is bubbling around all over the place. I cannot say what will happen to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South; or, indeed, to my constituents. The rumour-mongering through the inadequate management chain has left people in the dark.
One of my constituents, a national official of the Transport and General Workers Union, has given me a detailed view of his analysis, supported by information that he has collected from the trade union side. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), with myself and others, met employees and, briefly, the management last Friday in Ellesmere Port. I still have not been told in any detail what the company wants to do. Why should I be? I am not an employee of the business. But those who have given their heart, their soul and their life to the company do have the right to be told.
Many members of the work force in my constituency have relied on that business for their employment for many years; in many cases, for a lifetime. It is not just a one-way street. They have relied on the business, but, let us be honest, the business has relied on them. Those employees have turned round what was a failing business less than a generation ago and made it into one of the most successful vehicle companies; yet they cannot be trusted to be given information about its medium-term strategy. That is an unacceptable state of play.
I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week that everyone shared my anger and that of the work force at the way in which the situation was handled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central described, we have an opportunity to address such matters. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to put into context the situation that is facing us today in respect of Vauxhall when considering our responsibilities under the directive.
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). We are dealing not only with Vauxhall, as Corus, too, acted abysmally. Three years ago, a transfer of undertakings in my constituency closed the steelworks that had existed for 100 years. As a result, people lost their pensions because the pension fund was under-funded. At an employment appeals tribunal, the company said that the information that they provided to the work force at the time was false. It said that no transfer of undertakings took place, and it now acknowledges that the information that it gave to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and to the European Union stated exactly the opposite. Had a proper dialogue taken place, such a mess would not have arisen. It is an appalling state of affairs and yet another solid argument in favour of more information-sharing with employees inside businesses in the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I ask hon. Members to keep their comments brief, so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate.
11.32 am
Ms Margaret Moran: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing this important debate. Two years ago, when Vauxhall's management announced that problems were emerging in the plant, they were fast off the mark to contact me and members of the Government to secure support for funding for General Motors. It wanted to ensure support from the work force for what was hailed as a flagship partnership agreement. That pay and productivity deal was acclaimed as an exemplar of partnership arrangements. In other words, the company consulted at that time and, as a result, we were able to save the plant. Its productivity and profitability increased, as is still the case today.
Let us contrast that with the situation up to Christmas eve, when workers heard via local radio that their jobs were going. They had not been involved in any consultation process. What modern business operates in such a way in the 21st century? General Motors believed that it could get away with it. That is why it is essential that the Government act now to ensure that legislation is effective, so that we never again hear on early morning radio details of redundancies such as those at Vauxhall in Luton.
The way in which General Motors announced its plans for Luton was a disgrace. It is the unacceptable face of modern business. People clearly have a right to know if they face redundancy before the media finds out. I hope that the Minister will assure us that, notwithstanding the CBI and some Opposition Members urging us not to legislate on the matter, he will ensure that there is strong and forceful legislation to guarantee workers' rights to consultation when redundancy is imminent.
It is clear that the announcement came out of the blue. I suggest that the company not only failed to consult its work force, but went to some lengths to conceal the fact that there were difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to emerging trends, so the company could have consulted the work force much earlier. It is clear that the company discussed the issue with trade unions before the announcement, but it assured them that a package of measures would save the plant, saying that there would no job losses or any impact on jobs.
I contacted the company a few days before the announcement to ask the reason for the extended Christmas closure, and was assured that there were no problems in the plant. At that point, the company must have known of the prospect of imminent closure and the potential loss of 2,000 jobs. We were presented with a fait accompli, and a flagship agreement was simply thrown in the faces of the work force.
The situation could have been different. If there had been consultation in advance, we could have changed the company's mind. I congratulate the trade unions on their work to outline the financial implications of closure and the strong arguments for the plant's productivity and profitability. Such arguments could have made a difference. We must ensure that they are addressed by GM, and that it understands that it cannot present its workers with a fait accompli and expect to walk away from the consequences.
98WH
I welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Question Time a few weeks ago, when he said that he intended to review the employment legislation affecting collective redundancies. Different legislation would have made a difference. As a Government, we could have suggested aid packages to GM. Ironically, money is available in the Luton area to secure such plants. European structural funds, objective 2 funding and assisted area status funding is available for precisely such circumstances, but GM did not approach the Government to ask for that money.
Had there been a right to consultation before the decision was made, the trade unions could have made their coherent case as to why the European market was not in sufficient difficulty to legitimise the closure of one plant in the United Kingdom. We could have all asked the fundamental questions that remain unanswered. Why is a profitable plant being closed down? Why are the so-called losses of the company—they seem to be a one-year write-off of funds rather than actual losses—being used to justify the closure? How much is it costing the company to tear up contracts with supply-chain companies, many of them signed only weeks or months earlier in expectation of a second Vauxhall line?
Legislation is urgently needed, but, more importantly, it should ensure on-going consultation rights for workers. I recently raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Trade and Industry questions. It is not good enough, although it would have helped in the circumstances with which I am concerned, simply to give notice of redundancy within a few months of the event.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the hon. Lady aware that just before Christmas and the Prime Minister's departure for the European summit negotiations in Nice, he gave me a categorical assurance that the Government would not allow worker representation?
Ms Moran: I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman's party would introduce any measures to safeguard workers' rights.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The answer is that we have no intention of doing so, but perhaps the hon. Lady would answer my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and tell us whether she agrees with the Prime Minister, whose view is clearly the opposite of hers.
Ms Moran: The hon. Gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks. As we have heard, the Conservative party would not pass measures to protect workers with respect to redundancy; not only would the Tories fail to do as much as the Government are prepared to do, but they would rip up workers' rights introduced by the Government—the right to join a trade union, the right to paid holidays, and so on. Their free market would have told the Vauxhall workers, "Go hang; we will not help you." Will Conservative Members tell me when a Government of their party assisted workers as the present Government have done? I will not hear such hypocrisy.

99WH
We need legislation and on-going consultation so that workers can participate in the business plans of their organisations and understand the imperatives for productivity and profitability. That partnership can work, and has worked in the past. Companies ignore that approach at their peril. There is a strong business reason for advocating such an extension of the legislation. The Industrial Society has concluded, as a result of research—some of it in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry—that employees should have the right to make their views heard on major changes affecting the businesses in which they work
The Industrial Society also considers that consultation has proven business benefits. Before Conservative Members again protest that there should not be legislation, I remind them of the clear benefit that new measures would provide in reducing the bureaucratic burden imposed by the current piecemeal approach to consultation legislation—in addition to the benefit of recognising the stakeholder rights of employees.
Consultation is relatively widespread in the United Kingdom in comparison to the continent, but significant no-go areas exist, particularly among smaller companies. However, there is also a significant gap affecting the degree of influence that can be exercised after consultation. The evidence from the Industrial Society is that employees' motivation and productivity improve after the passing of measures such as those I advocate. A study by the Involvement and Participation Association shows that participation tends to be associated with a wide range of positive outcomes. Work done by the Industrial Society for the Department of Trade and Industry has shown that the adoption of a partnership-based approach helped all case study firms to achieve enhanced competitive performance. A 1997 European survey confirmed a positive correlation between the economic performance of a company and the scope for employees to contribute their views.
The Industrial Society has recommended measures creating an obligation to consult on major business decisions and an opportunity for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to be involved when necessary. It argues that if the Chancellor wants to increase United Kingdom productivity, he should persuade Ministers to widen consultation rights. If staff are consulted on major decisions that will affect them, it will pay off in better employee trust, commitment and performance. The Government can achieve those benefits by legislating to ensure that on-going consultation is introduced at the earliest opportunity.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he will introduce legislation to prevent morning radio redundancies. We owe it to the Vauxhall workers to make sure that legislation ensures the widest possible consultation, so that no other workers have to endure what the Vauxhall workers went through. A strong Vauxhall workers Bill that gives employees the rights to proper consultation would be a great honour and a real tribute to the hard work and loyalty of the Vauxhall work force.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that there will be three winding-up
100WH
speeches, starting at 12 noon. I ask hon. Members to keep their comments brief so that as many as possible can speak.
11.45 am
Mrs. Diana Organ: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing this debate. Many hon. Members have strong feelings about the need to improve consultation and the way in which workers are kept informed, and I wish to mention a constituency matter. First, however, I want to speak on the essential subject raised by the debate.
The European Union directive that gives workers the right to be told by their employers about impending decisions and the right to have their views on such matters taken into account is not radical. It is wholly reasonable that workers should have that right. They should be entitled to be told about their employer's economic and financial status, about recent developments and possible changes in the company's activities, and about the prospects for job security. They should know about decisions that are likely to cause significant changes in the organisation or work that might affect employment contracts. Workers should have time to digest that information, to prepare their opinion on it and to meet with management to discuss it and take to matters forward.
Workers in the UK do not enjoy the same rights as those in other EU member states, which is wrong. The rights afforded by the directive are not only fair but necessary in modern industrial relations. As John Monks, the TUC general secretary, said:
"Today's industrial relations aim to be about partnership and problem solving."
That partnership can work only if both sides are fully informed about the operation for which they are employed. It is wrong for employees to be told about key decisions after they have been made. It is wrong for workers to learn on the radio or from the press what is about to happen to their jobs.
A situation similar to that at Vauxhall is now being played out at Mitcheldean in my constituency by Xerox. The past three years have seen two major changes at the local plant. The first, in 1999, resulted in the company being the subject of censure and criticism at European level, partly because of the lack of information and consultation. The company has a history of not sharing information and not consulting workers. Every time that there is a change, the workers reel in shock, because they do not learn until the last possible moment what is about to happen at the plant. They learn about such decisions after they have been made instead of taking part in them. They are unable fully to work with the company to ensure their job security.
Xerox is the largest employer in the Forest of Dean. In 1998, it employed 2,900 people on its business park site, of which 1,900 were involved in manufacture. In 1999, the company decided to transfer 1,700 jobs from Mitcheldean to a new plant in Dundalk, Ireland. The plant was set up with the advantage of a low level of corporation tax—a rate of 10 per cent. was offered by the Irish Government—and for each new employee in Dundalk the company received a substantial subsidy from the Irish Industrial Development Agency. The

101WH
company stated that it was committed to the future and that Mitcheldean would be a manufacturing site well into the 21st century. Some compensation.
The company came in for considerable negative publicity within the European Parliament for the use of European Union money for job movement rather than for job creation. The company also failed adequately to consult with the work forces involved.
Xerox faces a massive problem, with financial difficulties on a global basis. A wholesale review of its operations and a radical re-structuring of its manufacturing in Europe are under way. Its three main plants are located at Venray in Holland, which employs 2,000 people; Dundalk, which—even after the transfer of 1,700 jobs—employs 1,000; and Mitcheldean, which employs 1,500, with another 300 employed in supply chain operations on the business park. Dramatic reductions in employment at Xerox could have a devastating impact on the local economy in the Forest of Dean, since many hundreds of other jobs are linked to that activity. More than 2,000 jobs are dependent on the viability of the Xerox plant in Mitcheldean.
Xerox issued a statement on 10 January, which was vague and gave no time scale for decisions or a review. It talked about everything being in and everything being out. As before, the work force was left not knowing what was happening with regard to jobs and job security. The company says the problems are economic, that its cost bases are too high and that costs must be cut to make the plant competitive. The review groups operating in Mitcheldean are considering all possible ways of cutting costs. In the past, the plant has attained all the targets set by the company.
Mitcheldean is the plant with the greatest experience of the digital products that the company aims to produce globally. It is recognised that it is cheaper to make parts at Mitcheldean than in other plants. It is working hard to improve its cost effectiveness and competitiveness to bring them up to the levels found in Korea. All of that obscures the fact that, on another continent, the company has made its decision. The company has effectively taken the decision in advance of the process of consultation and information. The company says that it is evaluating and reviewing the work. That is rubbish. It has made its decision, which is a clear breach of Community law. The MEP for the south-west, Glyn Ford, is taking up the matter in the European Parliament through written questions tabled yesterday.
One reason why I believe that the decision has already been made is that the Dundalk plant was set up with the advantage of grants and substantial subsidies. The company would have to make restorative payments—thousands of euros—for every job lost in Dundalk. It is easier for the company to shed jobs in the United Kingdom than in Ireland. However cost effective the jobs in Mitcheldean may be, the payments that will have to be made for any job losses in Dundalk will outweigh any savings.
Dundalk has been afforded protection. Joe Browne, the director and general manager of Xerox in Ireland, has said that around 2,500 jobs will be cut in the European operations, but the numbers in Ireland would not be affected. That begs the question of where the 2,500 jobs will be lost. Xerox has made its decision, and is just managing the release of the information. It has engaged a political public relations company, Grayling, to assist with that.
102WH
Xerox does not want the criticism that it received when it was restructuring and moving jobs to Dundalk. The company will carefully time any major announcement on redundancies and closures so that it is not made when issues such as consultation and information are high on the agenda, either here or at the European Parliament; especially when the European Parliament maybe discussing the directive.
Over the years, trade unions and work forces have complained that they have not been given information or had real consultation. Consequently, in the present situation, it is impossible for them not to think the worst scenario. It is difficult to build an effective, trusting industrial partnership in that environment. The local management have tried to address that in recent years but, since the culture and attitude of the company globally is not so inclined, it is difficult for them to do so. A constructive relationship is difficult to develop.
The situation facing the workers, the management and the company at Xerox in Mitcheldean is serious. Securing as many jobs as possible for as long as possible on the site requires efforts from all concerned and the support of local agencies, such as the regional development agency, Gloucestershire development agencies, national and European Governments.
The Government must sign up to the employee information and consultation directive. That would not do much to assist the workers at Mitcheldean now, but if they had had those rights over the past few years, they and their representatives would be better prepared and would be able to work constructively to keep the plant competitive. They would have had the right to know what was happening to their employment and their job security. Although at a local level the plant management have recently made greater efforts to consult, it is difficult for them to do that when it runs counter to the ethos of the company, which involves making announcements to fit the company's time scale and to fit in with what it wants to do. It is important that we have rights for workers, so that the Mitcheldean workers—who I hope will remain workers there for a long time to come—are not treated in that way.
11.55 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my other hon. Friends who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who has played a strong role in the determined campaign by the work force and the whole town to stop the Vauxhall closure, and to keep motor car production in Luton.
I want to make some simple points to the Minister about rejecting the Tory mantra of burdens on business. It is evident from events at Vauxhall that removing all constraints from multinational companies does not help our economy. It does not persuade those companies to stay in Britain, and it does not help the work force, who have been sold down the river. Many countries that have much stronger worker protection have done just as well, if not better, in terms of attracting investment from multinational companies.
We should not get involved in a Dutch auction, where we try to reduce worker rights to the lowest-possible level in the vain hope that we can attract multinational

103WH
companies to these shores. British workers must have the same rights as those elsewhere. Governments must work together to ensure that democratic government means something, and that they do not have to lie down and be walked over by multinational companies.
I worked at the TUC in the 1970s. At that time, there was a big change in the organisation's culture. We used to have the view that trade unions had negative rights, in the sense that we had the right to strike and to take industrial action against companies that had different interests and different views. That does not work when unemployment rises. In that situation, industrial action by trade unions is not as effective as it might be.
In the 1970s, workers and trade unions decided to promote the idea of industrial democracy. The Institute for Workers Control initially developed the idea, but the TUC published a major report on it, which included rights to consultation and information. That is the direction that we wanted to take 25 years ago. We continue to press for movement in that direction.
Two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry moved some way towards considering consultation rights. I am pleased that the Government are moving in that direction and making a clear break with what the Tories have done over the past 20 years. I want to see the Government move a good deal further in promoting trade union and worker rights, including the right to consultation.
In the past fortnight, I have promoted a private Member's Bill on consultation rights. It is 17th on the list, and probably will not get very far. However, I hope that it will, at least, help to persuade the Government that we want full workers' rights to consultation and information, so that what happened to the workers at Vauxhall does not happen again.
11.58 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). He has clearly struck a chord, and he has also talked a great deal of sense. For most of us, the starting point is that several companies, notably Vauxhall, behaved in a crass and insensitive way. The key point, which has been picked up in several interventions, is that they were also very short-sighted. If a big company is trying to sign up its work force for a productivity package or a new flexible work force arrangement, the work force will look around at the company's other operations and draw its own conclusions as to whether the management can be trusted. The kind of behaviour exhibited in Luton sends all the wrong signals.
It seems strange that the management did not sit down with its work force representatives and say, "We have a problem here. We cannot compete because of economic conditions, excess capacity in the industry and so on. Have a look at our books, at our costs—these are the difficulties that we share. Go and talk to your friends in the Government about it and we will do our best." The company should have treated the work force in an adult way, and tried to involve it in the decision-making process. That would be grown-up management, and I do not understand why it did not do that.
104WH
There are two issues that can be summarised briefly. First, should there be compulsion and regulation? Secondly, should that be established at a national or European level? In an ideal world, good management practice should be voluntary. In Holland—which I know reasonably well—Denmark and Germany, prior consultation is spontaneous because it has been embedded in their culture for decades. It has deep roots, and is related to their political system and much else. In this country, we do not have that culture.
There are two arguments for introducing regulatory compulsion. First, if one does not regulate to reinforce good practice, bad practice will tend to dominate. Every company with 100 workers that is faced with difficult decisions will look at blue-chip companies and multinationals and say, "If such behaviour is standard practice, why shouldn't we do the same?" Secondly, there is something in the argument that one can gain a competitive advantage by adopting hire-and-fire labour practices, although unions tend to exaggerate the force of such practices. I doubt whether companies decide in which part of Europe to invest —100 million on the basis of a hire-and-fire labour policy. None the less, such considerations clearly play a part at the margin, so some element of regulation and compulsion seems justified in principle.
In respect of compulsion and regulation at a European level, the Government have applied the subsidiarity principle. They argue that certain matters should be dealt with at a European level but that others should be dealt with nationally, and that labour law is clearly the province of the nation state. I have some sympathy with the subsidiarity principle. In many ways, my party is the most pro-European, but we nevertheless accept that there is too much European standardisation. The test of the subsidiarity principle is right and should always be applied, but it is difficult to apply it to the issue before us. Many industries—for example, the car industry—operate on a European basis. European business planning is relevant not just to the Renault-Nissan arrangements, but to Ford in Europe, the German operations of General Motors and the Japanese companies. To that extent, the subsidiarity principle does not apply to those companies.
Mrs. Ray Michie: My hon. Friend talks about subsidiarity in European terms, but I would like him to consider the global aspect as well. I draw his attention to an issue that extends beyond Vauxhall, and which is set out in early-day motion 254. Merchant Navy officers have offshore contracts with Associated Bulk Carriers, which is being sold by P&O. They have given many years of loyal service to that company, and are entitled to information and consultation, rather than being kicked out with three months' half-salary in lieu of notice, on contracts that are now based in Bermuda. Incidents such as that say everything about what is happening to our once great Merchant Navy, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take them into consideration.
Dr. Cable: That is a helpful intervention, because it reminds us that the problems associated with redundancy are not confined to the traditional manufacturing industry or European enterprises, but occur throughout the economy.

105WH
In conclusion, we should be open-minded about how to tackle this problem. I am not a labour lawyer, so I cannot comment definitively on the implications of labour law, but it would seem that are two approaches to the problem, the first of which is set out by the TUC. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said, these days the TUC is a modern-minded institution that, in general, tries to help to create a positive business environment. The TUC's approach is to treat the EU directive as a broad framework of protection within which, at a national level, it can sit down with the CBI—and unions can sit down with employers—to work out arrangements that are relevant to this country. If that is not practical, perhaps the Minister can explain why not. As a framework for commonsense—argument, it has few obvious flaws.
Alternatively, the Government could adopt a similar approach to that which has evolved in relation to competition policy. A few years ago, strong European directives and laws governed monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices. Over the past five years, the view that Europe is becoming over-centralised has taken hold. Consequently, the subsidiarity principle has been increasingly applied and much competition law has been pushed down to the national level—except in cases where mergers and monopolies are clearly European in character. The European directive could be recast so as to apply its provisions to cases where a European element is involved—such as in the car industry—but in all other cases legislation should be national in character.
If the Government take that route, they will have to explain how the national approach will evolve. Workers are not asking for much. They are not asking to intervene in the running of the companies for which they work, but for prior consultation on key decisions that affect their livelihoods. I would be surprised if the Government cannot find their way through the thicket of European and British law to resolve the problem.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has graciously offered to make his speech a little shorter to enable me to call Mr. Harry Barnes.
12.6 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is no greater argument for the introduction of employee consultation than the case of Biwater—a pipe manufacturing company in Clay Cross in my constituency, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—where, before Christmas, 700 jobs were lost with no prior consultation.
The attempted takeover of Biwater by St. Gobain was first known about in April last year. Discussions about what was to happen took place between the GMB, the shop stewards, the work force and Biwater's management. They were assured throughout that their future was guaranteed—although two of the managers involved went over to St. Gobain after the takeover. Within minutes of the takeover on 4 September, it was announced that the plant would be closed within 90 days. It closed on 22 December, although some people had already lost their jobs.
106WH
Despite the fact that deputations had met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and he had spoken to Jean-Louis Beffa, the managing director of St. Gobain, about consultations on any changes, the work force was not allowed to enter into any discussions other than those concerning how the redundancies were to take place. Of course, it sometimes overstepped the mark and tried to raise other matters, but, as far as the management were concerned, such discussions were not to take place.
The loss of 700 jobs had a devastating impact on the area—yet there was no need for it to happen. Biwater was a viable works, and 80 per cent. of its output went into exports. St. Gobain's interest in taking over the company was to knock out a competitor, take over its order book, asset-strip and sell off those assets. There should have been prior consultation and discussion. I am convinced that had the directive existed and there had been consultation, that plant could have been saved. The importance of the measure cannot be exaggerated and I hope that the bitter experience of workers in Clay Cross will lead to suitable legislation.
12.10 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) has done us all a favour in raising this matter and I hope that I shall not destroy the future career of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) if I say that his contribution was particularly thoughtful. My ulterior motive in encouraging the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) to speak was to continue my enjoyment of the great spat between old Labour and new Labour—the fissure in the party and the great project is now clear for all to see as the old trade union bloc asks for certain measures, which the Minister and perhaps the Prime Minister will pretend to give, but will never deliver. I hope that they will not be taken for suckers by their own Front Bench.
We should listen to the CBI, which was, amusingly, described as extremist today. I have never heard it so described in such a context. Digby Jones, the director-general, warned:
"A one-size-fits-all policy for every business employing more than 50 people is exactly the type of Brussels initiative that will hinder UK growth, investment and job creation. Companies need the freedom to communicate with staff in ways that reflect national and local customs and practice."
Many of those customs and practices are well established and work as every mature company wants them to work.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Does the hon. Gentleman condemn or condone Vauxhall's actions?
Mr. Duncan: I shall come to that in a moment. It is a fair point, which has coloured all the contributions to this debate.
Before the general election, Labour promised business:
"We will not impose burdensome regulations on business."
However, the reality is that business is struggling to cope with the imposition of an extra £5 billion a year in regulatory costs. Since 1997, the United Kingdom has fallen from fourth to ninth position in the world competitiveness league.

107WH
Perhaps the Minister will tell us the status of the blocking minority to the directive. As I understand it, his allies in opposing the measure were Germany, Denmark and Ireland. Can he confirm whether the Germans are still opposed, because there were reports before Christmas that their resolve was weakening? That is important, because the Swedish presidency has made clear its wish for progress on the matter. Sweden's Employment Minister stated:
"We are looking to take an important step towards achieving a directive on worker information and consultation."
The directive will be adopted by qualified majority voting, so the Government must ensure that they have sufficient allies to block it. We heard much at the Lisbon summit last summer about how the EU would be a powerful engine for economic advance. If that amounts to more than the empty rhetoric that we are used to from the Government, why has the Minister failed to persuade more of his EU counterparts that the directive is exactly the sort of measure that undermines business competitiveness and increases business costs? I hope that he will clarify the position.
It was disgraceful that the redundancies at Vauxhall were announced on the radio. That was appalling. It was also unprofessional on the part of the broadcaster and doubly devious on the part of the person who leaked the information. The problem was not so much the process of consultation as the fact that the announcement was leaked before it was given to the work force. It was a complete and utter disgrace on someone's part and if the culprit could be found, he would face universal national opprobrium.
Mr. Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the decision would have been more acceptable if we had known about it before it was announced?
Mr. Duncan: The problem with the directive is that it does not cover the fact that the openness of what is said to a series of people down a chain of information has to be consistent with the process of negotiation. If all aspects of negotiation, whether commercial or based on employment, are played out in public, there will be massive problems, which may militate against a successful conclusion and the achievement of the firm's objectives. All that would have happened had the works council been told, is that some kind of rumour or half-announcement would have been made public, half-baked and before matters had been concluded. The danger is that compulsion in law could work against the interests of a work force, because management would be compelled to reveal, step by step, every aspect of their negotiation process.
Mr. Miller: Where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence?
Mr. Duncan: It is self-evident. Every reputable company will involve the work force at the earliest possible stage of negotiations, in a way that is consistent with the best commercial interests of the firm and the work force. Such a one-size-fits-all legalistic prescription could end up working against the interests of a work force. Its supporters think that that will not
108WH
happen, but in many cases, such regulations ultimately have that effect. The Opposition want firms to be able to build up proper partnerships with the work force, so that they are not denied the opportunity to do what is best for them by legislation that is too prescriptive and narrow, which might work against the interests of many people.
12.16 pm
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): This is an important and topical debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing it.
I do not intend to spend long on the comments made by the Opposition. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has many attributes, but understanding social justice is not one of them. I once said that trying to explain social justice to the Conservative party was like trying to explain origami to a penguin. The hon. Gentleman's contribution should be left out of the debate.
First, I want to explain the Government's current approach to information and consultation generally, and then I shall talk about the European directive and high-profile recent events, which have largely prompted this debate.
Our approach must be seen within the context of our overall approach to employment relations, which were set out in the "Fairness at Work" proposals. If my colleagues and I are absolutely honest, when the Labour party was deciding its agenda on coming back into government after so many years in opposition—I was part of that process in a previous incarnation—the information and consultation issue was never really at the top of that agenda. That is one of the historic problems, on which my hon. Friend the. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) touched, of the trade union movement in this country especially.
In a very short period, however, we implemented the minimum wage, the working time directive, the right to trade union recognition and the right to be accompanied at grievance and discipline hearings. Let us not have any suggestion that this Government are acting against workers' rights. The question is where to place the important issue of information and consultation in the context of future Government action.
We are committed to the promotion of partnership. We believe in information and consultation. Our argument in relation to Europe, which I shall discuss later, is about the ends, not the means. Central to everything that we have done in relation to "Fairness at Work" is the attempt to encourage a genuine spirit of partnership. One can set up all the mechanisms, structures and works councils in the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is well aware of this, as he has studied the matter in great detail—but the important issue is how to ensure that the work force can have a genuine influence on and input into management decisions.
The solution is not having token workers on the board, as we had under the Bullock proposals. I experienced the industrial democracy experiment—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton)—at first-hand level as a local shop steward. It did not work. The mechanisms were in place,

109WH
but management moved the decision-making structure. When workers sat on the board, decisions started to be made in a sub-committee of the board. We had the right to approach any issue locally, regionally and nationally. On the trade union side, we were not over-enthusiastic about the experiment and did not put the major trade union players in to bat. In effect, the entire project disintegrated. Mrs. Thatcher—
Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Johnson: I do not have time. I have only 10 minutes. A refusal often offends; I should have made it clear at the beginning that I would not have time to take interventions.
How do we arrive at a genuine—
Mr. Duncan: That is very shabby.
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman would know everything about shabbiness.
How do we genuinely influence decisions? Informing and consulting employees is an integral part of harnessing the energy and commitment of the work force. The debate has hinged on certain specific, well-defined circumstances, such as collective redundancies. My hon. Friend the. Member for Manchester, Central said that he hoped that our review would not concentrate on collective redundancies. However, almost every contribution has centred on what happened to workers at Vauxhall, and BMW and in Clay Cross. We must examine collective redundancies and transfers and investigate the legal underpinning of those processes when necessary and practicable. We have done that, and I want to have time to explain the rights that British workers have at the moment, so that we can record them.
Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He made some good points about legislation pushing decision making into other layers of secrecy. I have been absolutely upfront about my opposition to the directive. However, the Prime Minister has said that he opposed it and, in the past, the Minister has said that he opposes it. Is he in favour of the EU directive or not?
Mr. Johnson: I shall discuss the European directive in a moment. We have just wasted a couple of valuable minutes.
We believe that employee involvement mechanisms must reflect the requirements of individual organisations. Employee involvement goes to the heart of the way in which an organisation is managed. Organisations vary greatly in that respect. Some operate in a global context; others are national or regional. They have different ownership structures and patterns of employment, and some are subject to Stock Exchange rules. Structures imposed from above will not work as intended.
Labour Members, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), were as one in asking for genuine information and consultation mechanisms. The establishment of a constructive dialogue between employees and management cannot simply be decreed through legislation. That is why, until now, we preferred
110WH
to pursue a voluntary approach. That approach included the partnership fund and the launch of the TUC partnership institute last year, which stemmed from the partnership fund. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) on the Industrial Society relate to that approach. We want genuine involvement and a culture change.
As I explained, the Government's policy has been to encourage information and consultation on matters to which no statutory requirement applies. Some people say that the voluntary approach is not working. I ask such people to read the work force employee relations survey, which I do not have time to detail. It is the most comprehensive survey carried out in this country, and it is well respected by the trade union movement; partly because it shows that trade union membership is a plus for the company and the work force. The survey showed a large extent of voluntary work force involvement throughout the country, which suggests a healthy pattern.
Recent high-profile cases have suggested that we cannot be complacent. The Luton closure is the latest example—like BMW-Rover and Ford recently—of the problems that British workers are experiencing. An interesting point that I do not believe was sufficiently covered in the debate is that the decisions in all three cases were made—
Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Johnson: I really do not have time.
All those decisions were made outside the United Kingdom, and they should all have been covered by the European measure that we wholeheartedly supported. I do not remember the position of Opposition Members, but it was probably against the measure; that is usually the case if a measure mentions workers. We supported it precisely because we agreed that in trans-national and pan-European companies—with decisions being made in Munich or Paris or elsewhere in Europe—we had to have a mechanism to ensure that British workers were informed and consulted.
Although it is recent, we must review that measure because it has not worked sufficiently in the three cases that I have mentioned. That is an important part of our review. We must take stock of what happened, particularly in relation to the disgraceful way that workers in Luton found out their fate from a radio broadcast. We must ensure that whatever we introduce—or if we change the arrangements—such issues will be dealt with. The three high profile cases concern Europe.
Judy Mallaber: What about Coats Viyella?
Mr. Johnson: Coats Viyella is a good example of something that happened in the United Kingdom. I am merely trying to put the matter into context. Even if we had accepted the information and consultation directive from Europe, and applied it domestically, we would have been going through a process in which there was only the appearance of consultation. The actual decisions would be made outside the UK. That is what the European works council was designed to put right.

111WH
The review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be restricted to consideration of the redundancy issue. It must also take into account the accusation that it is cheaper to sack workers in the UK than anywhere else. The review must be wider. The process will involve three or four months of review followed by a decision, because it is important that we do not repeat past mistakes, such as the Bullock report, which was an experiment in industrial democracy. We must ensure that the problem is resolved.
As far as the European Union directive is concerned, our position has not changed. We are not alone in believing that it breaches subsidiarity, and the countries that support us in that belief have a long history of trade union involvement. I draw attention to the European works council. The European company statute that we agreed on 21 December has a full section on industrial democracy information and consultation, and that is the right way to proceed in Europe. However, we must protect our domestic situation. The countries that oppose the directive, under qualified majority voting, feel the same way. They have sophisticated systems and they do not want a one-size-fits-all measure to interfere with them.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that I did not use some obscure procedural device on 21 December. I know more about "ABC of chairmanship" by Citrine than I do about "Erskine May". Coming from a trade union background, I know that if something is not on the agenda, it is not discussed. My hon. Friend can call that a procedural point if he likes. The situation in Europe is the same, because it breaches subsidiarity. If we are to resolve the problem in the United Kingdom, we must, given our history of employment involvement and industrial relations, take account of our domestic situation.
The history of this subject is fascinating. A statue should have been built to honour Alan Flanders, a young trade unionist who worked for the TUC; I suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North was a young trade unionist once. Alan Flanders was the man whom Ernie Bevin sent to Germany after the second world war to recreate the German trade union movement, which had been banned by Hitler since 1933. To a great degree, Alan Flanders developed co-determination. Although we exported that sort of model, those of us in the trade union movement were not exactly enthusiastic. We all grew up with free collective bargaining, civil rights only with a union card and no state interference. We have changed tack. We are not as well advanced as some countries in Europe, and we have had to take a different route.
I have not had time to mention all the important legislation, such as the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the collective redundancies directive—which was amended and improved in 1999—and other issues in relation to workers' rights. We are determined to have a proper review to consider whether the important concerns highlighted so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South can be resolved domestically, as part of our overall approach to social justice and fairness at work.

Police (South Buckinghamshire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: It has been my privilege since 1997 to represent the Beaconsfield constituency, of which South Buckinghamshire district forms the core. Recent surveys have shown it to be one of the wealthiest and most economically successful areas in the country. It has low unemployment and is, above all, a pleasant place in which to live. Far from being cloistered by their wealth and success, local residents are active in charitable and community work.
It has become clear during the past 18 months, however, that there is a growing problem with crime. Of course, there is always public anxiety about crime. I once served on the Lambeth police community consultative group, and I have seen problems of crime at the sharp end. Sometimes, people's anxieties are misplaced, but my mailbag and the evidence of my surgery tell me that crime has been increasing along with local residents' anxiety.
Residents have complained about burglary and car crime in particular and, in Burnham, about disorder, which is centred around the presence of several antisocial families causing fear in their neighbourhood. There is also a major problem with travellers, some of whom live wholly outside the law, causing damage to property, degrading the sites on which they unlawfully settle, and using their bases for other criminality. That matter became so serious that I raised it with the Home Secretary last March. I am extremely grateful to him and the Home Office for taking the issue seriously and issuing new guidelines to try to deal with the problem.
This month, Home Office research conducted by the university of Leeds, and highlighted in a Channel 4 programme, "The Crime List", identified South Buckinghamshire as having a serious crime and policing problem. Taking into account the many economic and social factors that affect crime, on the basis of which the Home Office allocates resources to the police, the survey rated South Buckinghamshire bottom of the 376 districts in terms of police effectiveness in dealing with crime. The press promptly dubbed South Buckinghamshire the worst-policed area of England and Wales.
That description is a gross oversimplification and singularly unfair to the police. Some types of crime, such as violent crime and sexual offences, are very low in South Buckinghamshire. We are 29th out of 376 for violent crime, and 16th out of 376 in the league table for sexual offences. The district is covered by two police areas, one of which, Chiltern Vale, is based in Wycombe, and the other in Slough, both of which are outside the district itself. Both areas are commanded by relatively young officers, Chief Superintendents Setchell and Beckley, for whom I have a high regard. They are dynamic and proactive in trying to fight crime, and are approachable for the local community. A recent raid on a travellers' site by the Chiltern Vale police also involved customs officers and the RSPCA. They netted a haul of stolen cars, illegal shotguns, stolen property, red diesel where it should not be, and ill-treated animals.
Beat officers are good. Some of them are extremely good. Community-police liaison is superb. Currently, though, no police stations are open full-time in the

113WH
district. The police station at Iver is manned and kept open part-time with the help of volunteers, which is a good reflection of local support and participation. The district council does its best to help.
None of that has stopped the rising trend in certain types of crime, which has reached levels that are too high for the local police to tackle effectively, and certainly not as they would wish, as they tell me. The problem is that, because of its relative affluence and advantage, the area acts as a magnet for criminals from adjacent areas that have historically had much higher crime rates and, in fairness, much greater indices of deprivation.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which obviously covers my area as well. I endorse his remarks about our police force. Does he agree that one of the problems that the force faces is in the recruitment and retention of officers, especially because of the high cost of living in the south-east? No matter how excellent our police officers are in executing their duties, if we cannot recruit and retain them, we have a serious problem.
Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to her for attending the debate, as we share the Chiltern Vale police district. I will move on in a moment to deal with her point—she has captured the issue in one sentence—but first, I shall illustrate to the Minister the sort of problems that we are having.
Property crime generally, including burglary, theft, handling, fraud and forgery, and criminal damage, is at 25.4 offences per 1,000 population, compared with a national average of 19.6. It is particularly telling that burglary from dwellings is at 28.3 offences per 1,000 households, placing the district 330th in the catalogue of 376. In the village of Hedgerley, the rate is a staggering 55 offences per 1,000 households.
Theft from vehicles is at 30.3 offences per 1,000, which puts us 373rd out of 376 in the table. That is three times the national average. In Dorney, another small village on the Thames near Slough, the rate is over 75 offences per 1,000. Those are horrific figures. Theft of vehicles is at 7.8 offences per 1,000 population. Vehicle crime generally, theft both from and of vehicles, is twice the national average in England and Wales, and the gap is growing. It is a feature of most of the crimes that I have just cited that the latest figures show increases. Burglary has risen by 29.3 per cent. since last year, vehicle crime by 7 per cent., and criminal damage by 23.9 per cent.
To put those figures in perspective, all crime is down by 4.4 per cent. over Thames Valley as a whole. Equally, I accept that those crime levels do not compare with very high-crime areas in the Thames Valley, such as Slough town centre or Reading. What I find worrying—the Minister should, too—is that robbery, which largely means ram raids and holding up shops, which was hitherto very low, is showing signs of increasing at a time when it seems to be decreasing in other places. It all points to a deteriorating situation.
It would be nice to say that all that was unexpected, but it is not. The cause is not an inefficient or lazy police but lies elsewhere, in how the resources have been allocated. As the Secretary of State confirmed to me in his answer of 20 January 2000, spending on policing
114WH
on an average per capita basis in Thames Valley in 1999–2000 was £108.88, compared with a national average of £123.19. Yet Thames Valley is a large area with significant policing demands.
Historically, increases in establishment agreed with the Home Office failed to keep pace with the growth in population. As a result, when in April 1995 funding was introduced on a complex needs formula, removing Home Office controls, a number of damping mechanisms were introduced. Those were designed to prevent places such as Surrey from losing too many officers, but the damping mechanism in Thames Valley has left the authority without the resources necessary to raise its establishment to the level that it needs.
In the police's view, we are £10 million short in grant and standard spending assessment over the six years. Worse, extraordinary items of policing, such as the Newbury bypass and the problems at Hillgrove farm, Witney, have cost the authority £11 million. When there was a problem at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridgeshire, the Government saw fit to offer £1 million to help. Thames Valley has not seen one penny of assistance in respect of those extraordinary policing costs.
Up until 1998, South Buckinghamshire escaped the worst aspects of the formula, because historically it had been policed with a larger establishment than some other Thames Valley areas. The rumour is that, historically, because of the number of police officers living in the area, there was no problem in attracting a high level of policing to protect their homes—I do not know whether that is apocryphal. In that year, it was determined—frankly, inevitably, in view of the pressures elsewhere in the Thames Valley area—to apply the total resource allocations formula, or TRAF, to determine police numbers, and South Buckinghamshire suffered in that process.
I still have the correspondence and briefings from when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and I made our representations. Chiltern Vale took a cut of 9 per cent. in budget, on top of a 2.5 per cent. cut that applied to the force as a whole. That was 30 police officers and 20 civilian staff. On top of that, another 20 probationary officers were lost at the same time, as the service was over establishment. That was a huge cut. It is interesting to note that we were told at that time that crime had been reduced by more than 10 per cent. over three years, and burglary was down by one third: the result of good policing and adequate resources.
The effect of the changes has been entirely negative for South Buckinghamshire. In April 1997, there were 316 police officers in Chiltern Vale. Today, despite enormously creative attempts by the chief superintendent to raise the number of officers by cutting in other areas, we are below 300. In Slough, cuts in numbers were never envisaged—it is, after all, a high-crime area—but even there there are 254, which is seriously under strength, with 18 vacancies.
It is not surprising that one of the principal complaints, with the rising crime rate, is the inability of the police sometimes to fulfil the basic response requirement of getting to the scene of a burglary, when it is not an emergency, within two hours. If staff are off sick, longer delays will inevitably occur, and the police

115WH
cannot be in two places at once, but public confidence in police efficiency is thus eroded and the closure of the police stations in the district, with Gerrards Cross no longer operating 24 hours a day, adds to a sense of being abandoned.
Other recent examples include the removal of community officers from Burnham and Iver back to Slough police station to deal with more urgent issues there. The fact that, in truth, the police are still working very hard, and concentrating on priorities, is not noticed. The complaints, in turn, have an adverse effect on police morale, as they see their hard work no longer being appreciated or recognised.
On some evenings, there are only two patrol cars on the road in the whole of the Slough police district. Some of my constituents point out that the one police force in the country that has seen an increase recently is Durham, and suggest that there may be a link with the Prime Minister's constituency. I have not the slightest idea, but such comments will continue unless clear answers can be provided.
Part of the problem with the police establishment is that the high cost of living makes it difficult to recruit and retain officers, as my hon. Friend said. The ending of the housing allowance in 1994 meant that officers recruited after that date received £4,000 per annum less than those previously joining the force. I accept that the decision was taken under the previous Government, but the Metropolitan police at that time enjoyed an uplift of £2,000, and will now enjoy an uplift of £6,000, over Thames Valley officers. It is hardly surprising that, as quickly as Thames Valley officers are recruited, they haemorrhage either into London or out into the country, to enjoy a better standard of living. Last year Thames Valley recruited 244 officers and lost 245. The briefing prepared for the Minister by Thames Valley police specifically states:
"These difficulties are threatening to frustrate our attempts to take up the extra resources provided under the crime fighting fund, and are in danger of undermining our efforts to reduce crime levels and the fear of crime across the Thames Valley."
I hope that I have persuaded the Minister that something must be done about issues that are a real problem, and not just some politically motivated exaggeration. I am aware that, under the provisional funding settlement of 2001–02, Thames Valley will get an increase of 5.8 per cent., receiving over £4 million from the crime fighting fund and £1 million for rural policing. Frankly, however, that will have no beneficial impact unless the recruitment problem is solved. Thames Valley needs the ability to provide a substantial uplift in line with the Metropolitan police. If the problem is reluctance by the Police Federation to allow for differentials, all I can say to the Minister is that he is going to have bang some heads together pretty hard and pretty quickly.
Some thought should also be given to the problem of policing rural areas such as South Buckinghamshire. The area is sandwiched between urban centres with high crime and high police priorities. With those competing priorities, my constituents seem to lose out. That might not happen if there was a separate police district covering our area and possibly part of Chiltern Vale as well.
116WH
When the issue first broke, a local journalist suggested to me that, being relatively wealthy, South Buckinghamshire might be better able to cope with higher levels of crime and ought to accept its fate. I pointed out to him, as I do now to the Minister, that it is the money from the enterprise and thrift of my constituents that pays for the policing successes in places such as Knowsley, North in Liverpool. My constituents are, of course, conscious that they have a better standard of living and greater opportunities than people do there, but they are still entitled to expect a police service that inspires confidence and can deal with crime adequately. The dedicated police officers are there, but not the resources. That is the issue that I hope the Minister will address today.
12.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on securing this debate, and I am grateful for him giving me notice of the main points that he intended to raise, which will lead to a better-informed debate.
I also acknowledge the intervention of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whom I am particularly glad to see here, as she has a long-standing relationship with my constituency and it is always a pleasure to share a debate with her. She tries to keep quiet about the Norfolk connection, but we advertise it as widely as possible because she is such a credit to the Conservatives in a rather thin field.
I was grateful for the remarks of both hon. Members in praise of the police in their constituencies. I add my tribute to the police in their constituencies and to the Thames Valley force as a whole, which has such a good record.
This debate is timely, because of the concerns that have been raised about policing in South Buckinghamshire recently, and in particular since the transmission of the Channel 4 programme on policing and crime on 13 January 2001. That programme drew up a league table that compared police performance in each district or unitary local authority area in England and Wales. It used the results of some regression analysis carried out by the university of Leeds to equalise a range of socio-demographic factors so that each local authority district could, it claimed, be fairly compared regardless of the nature of its population and the level of deprivation that it faced.
The Home Office has not tried to devise a national league table in that way, because there are methodological issues that are of concern. However, we have gone down the route of devising families of crime and disorder reduction partnerships and basic command units of broadly similar socio-economic characteristics. From those, the public and BCU commanders can benchmark and compare like with like.
We published our most recent figures earlier this month, and the previous figures, published in July, were on the same basis—the first time that such data have been published in that form. That should enable people to have informed debates of the type that the hon. Gentleman is trying to stimulate today.
The Thames Valley police have made known to me their disappointment with the content of the Channel 4 programme. South Buckinghamshire is affluent, in

117WH
comparison with many areas with high levels of social deprivation, and in terms of violent crime, it is indeed one of the safest parts of the Thames Valley. It is important to place that on the record, given the nature of the programme.
The league table constructed by Leeds university is an interesting approach and I look forward to receiving more details from its creators of how it has been produced. When setting up inter-authority comparisons, we have found it far more helpful to generate families of crime and disorder reduction partnership with similar characteristics. That allows more direct comparisons between similar areas and makes benchmarking more accessible to all concerned.
South Buckinghamshire, which is in the crime and disorder reduction partnership family 11—as seen in the published tables of Home Office documents earlier this month and last July—is in the first quartile, the safest, for crimes of violence against the person and for sexual offences. I emphasise that that is within the crime reduction partnership family. It is in the fourth quartile, the worst, for robbery, burglary from dwellings and theft of and from vehicles. It is performing poorly in those respects, but not in terms of crimes of violence.
Across England and Wales as a whole, South Buckinghamshire remains one of the safest areas in terms of violence against the person and sexual offences. It is in the third quartile for robbery, but remains in the bottom quartile for burglary and vehicle theft. A similar pattern emerges across the Thames Valley police authority area. The best approach to stimulating debate about these matters is through more specific analysis rather than through an overall table produced nationally and published in a Channel 4 programme.
Our assessment is that South Buckinghamshire's higher than average property and vehicle crime levels are due to a combination of factors. The area borders several large towns that suffer deprivation. It is also well served by the motorway network, so it can be targeted by travelling and opportunistic thieves. The Thames Valley force is working in partnership with various agencies to promote safer communities and to target prolific offenders, which can be difficult in areas of high mobility.
Thames Valley's own crime reports show that individuals who leave articles such as mobile phones and laptop computers on show, particularly in company cars, contribute significantly to the rise in property-related and vehicle crime. When I recently visited the police in Slough, that point was made forcefully to me. Despite their best efforts, the police cannot solve these problems alone. That is why we developed the partnership approach for attacking vehicle crime, one product of which was the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, which completed its final stages in the House yesterday. In a series of other measures, we are working jointly with the police, local government, motor manufacturers and the insurance industry to attack vehicle crime and achieve our targets.
The Thames Valley police authority has set five-year targets to reduce domestic burglary by 40 per cent. and vehicle crime by 30 per cent. As the published figures demonstrate, it is a challenging target and it amounts to a head-on confrontation with the problems illustrated in
118WH
the tables. I want formally to congratulate the force on setting such challenging targets in conjunction with the other authorities in the crime reduction partnerships.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding for the Thames Valley force. We shall debate the police funding settlement for England and Wales later this afternoon. Thames Valley police are set to receive funding support of £245.1 million next year—an increase of £13.4 million or 5.8 per cent. over 2000–01. The average increase for forces in England and Wales is 4.9 per cent. I skimmed lightly down the table of increases and found that only six of the 43 forces have received better overall increases than the Thames Valley force.
It is worth placing it on the record that the 1998–99 increase for the Thames Valley force was 5.3 per cent., compared with 3.2 per cent. nationally; in 1999–2000, it got 2.4 per cent., compared with 2.5 per cent. nationally; and in 2000–01, 3.2 per cent., compared with 2.8 per cent. I have already provided the figure for 2001–02. Over the years, the Thames Valley force has done better than the national average, but that is not to dispute the issues of funding that the hon. Gentleman raised. However, the national context should help him to make appropriate judgments.
In addition, the Thames Valley force has received £4.3 million from the crime fighting fund for recruiting police, about which I shall say more in a moment; £8.7 million for the costs of the Airwave police radio system; and £1.3 million from the rural policing fund, which was established in response to the campaign around the country for more resources for rural policing. Those are all significant amounts and the Thames Valley force will use them well. I hope that they will go some way towards dealing with the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes.
I have met the chief constable and the police authority to discuss the funding for the extraordinary costs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have established a clear rule for such funding. The decision on the Huntingdon laboratory in Cambridgeshire took account of the specific circumstances there. I acknowledge the case that has been made about having had to deal with the environmental and animal welfare protests.
We have consistently stated that police numbers are important as part of a comprehensive package of measures. Thames Valley police has 3,748 police officers, as at the end of September 2000, which is eight more than on 30 March 2000, six months earlier, and 53 more than on 30 March 1997. I am delighted that the ambitions of the Labour shadow Home Secretary to have more police officers than when we took power have, under the Government's outstanding leadership, been well overachieved in Thames Valley, and I hope that that fact will be acknowledged.
Mr. Grieve: I accept that, but I hope that the Minister will deal with the fact that it is a much slower take-up of numbers than the police would want, because of the problems with recruiting and maintaining their manpower.
Mr. Clarke: I will come to that legitimate point. Thames Valley has 177.1 officers per 100,000 population. Six forces have lower levels of officers per 100,000.

119WH
Because time is limited, all that I shall say about the crime fighting fund is that the process is being moved forward and that, because of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we are prepared to be flexible on allocations. The police negotiating board is considering whether there should be an allowance for officers in forces outside London, including Thames Valley, and we await its recommendations on that or any other issues to do with police pay and allowances. It is not appropriate for me, as a Minister, to second-guess the position of the police negotiating board—an august body whose deliberations can never be tested by anybody.
The employers' side has made proposals in which the chief constable and the authority for Thames Valley have taken a full part. We shall await the outcome of the PNB deliberations. I cannot express optimism or pessimism about that, except to say that the employers would not have made their case unless they considered it well founded, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged. I hope that, on the issue of police housing—there has been substantial debate in the authority about its housing sales policy—the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will put their weight fully behind those who argue that the police should maximise the housing available to police in the Thames Valley area and not rashly dispose of housing more rapidly than they need to.
We accept the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point about the need to increase presence and reassurance in rural areas. Only yesterday, I was discussing how to do that with leaders of the national police service. We are making progress on various initiatives, including mobile police stations, rural parish special constables and targeted patrolling, to address issues of police presence and visibility. I know that he will join me in celebrating the fact that police numbers are higher in the Thames Valley area than when we took office. The same goes for police stations: in March 1997, there were 53 in Thames Valley; in March this year, 55.
None of that is meant to deny that there are major problems that need to be addressed, but we can say categorically that we are seeking to tackle precisely the issues that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman in what I have certainly found to be—as I hope that he has—an interesting and worthwhile discussion.

North Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust
1 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I welcome the opportunity to debate the findings of the first report of the Commission for Health Improvement. However, I very much regret that it is a report into a serious case of patient abuse in my constituency at the former Garlands psychiatric hospital, which was run by North Lakeland Healthcare NHS trust. I am pleased to say that this weekend I visited the site of the hospital; it has been closed, the demolition has started and the patients and the staff have been transferred over to the new Carleton clinic—an excellent facility.
In order to appreciate fully the scale of the problem, I shall have to outline some of the background details of the events and abuse that took place. In December 1998, two bank nurses from another hospital were working in the Garlands hospital, in Kielder House ward. They were so appalled by the abuse that they saw that they reported it to the senior managers. I would like to thank those two members of staff for taking that brave decision. I understand that they were heavily criticised by some of their colleagues, but whistleblowing has to happen in the NHS and they did the right thing.
I will briefly outline the sort of abuse that was taking place in Kielder House ward. In December 1998, two elderly patients in their night attire—not wearing their dressing gowns—were locked outside on a veranda in the cold. The staff refused to let them back in for a considerable period of time. Other incidents included patients being tied to commodes—a great indignity and against all the rules—and fed their meals at the same time. Other patients were sworn at and told they were past their sell-by date, that they should be in their box—in fact that they should be dead. They were subjected to verbal and physical abuse. One patient was struck in the testicles by a male nurse who was a judo expert. That was the level of abuse.
An internal inquiry looked into the matter and in March 1999 it reported with 33 recommendations to improve the situation in Kielder House and in the new clinic. I saw a copy of the Kielder House internal review in April 1999 and was appalled. I have been in public service since 1972 and have dealt with many difficult situations, but I was very angry when I read about the abuse that was taking place and lost sleep that night.
I had a meeting with Mary Styth, who was the chair of the trust. She expressed concern about the abuse and called for an external inquiry into what had happened in Kielder House ward. The inquiry was set up by the regional health authority. In August 1999 it discovered a previous report into abuse in the hospital in 1996.
The catalogue of abuse was very similar and it was then in ward 21, which was merged with Kielder House ward later. The 1996 report, which included complaints by student nurses, had been ignored and no real action had been taken. In fact, there was a cover-up in 1996. The chief executive of the trust said that he had not read the report for three years. In August, it was decided that he should be suspended.
In March 2000, the external inquiry reported. It found that a range of unprofessional and cruel practices took place in Kielder House, and severely criticised the

121WH
1996 investigation. Following the publication of the report, the chairman of the trust, Mary Styth, was summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State, and six members of staff were subject to disciplinary action.
I am sure that the 1996 and 1998 incidents were not isolated. Sadly, we must presume that abuse carried on throughout the period, if not longer. Later, I will mention the failure of various organisations to detect and stop the abuse, but I would like to make it clear now that none of the failures of the system absolves those who perpetrated that abuse. There was no excuse for it.
Following the external review and the large amount of publicity about the abuse and the sacking, the Government rightly called in the Commission for Health Improvement, and we are now considering its report. It said that the abuse was some of
"the worst involving elderly patients in recent years".
It was highly critical of the management that investigated ward 21 and Kielder House, saying that there was a complete failure of effective management and a "whole systems failure". The report accused the trust of failing to respond to the early warnings of whistleblowers. Despite the evidence, the commission found a culture of denial among some staff, who did not believe that the abuse had taken place.
I shall move on to lessons to be learned and problems that were created. North Cumbria health authority failed to act following the complaint from Carlisle MIND about abuse at the hospital. Although the health authority's headquarters were only 10 minutes' drive away from Garlands hospital, it worries me that there was a remoteness between the two, as though they were 100 miles apart. I also felt that the non-executive members of the health authority were not informed of the problems at Garlands.
We are lucky in Carlisle to have an excellent community health council, which has been ably led for many years by its chief officer, Peter Canham. However, due to the nature of its visits, the CHC failed, in that it did not pick up the abuse. I repeat my belief that the abuse was systematic in the hospital, not occasional. Although we have a good CHC, and although I am not totally convinced that I support the Government 100 per cent. on the alternative to CHCs, the fact that they have structural problems was shown in this situation.
The only organisation to come out of the affair with any credit was Carlisle MIND. I have to declare an interest, as I am its vice-president and my office shares a building with it. It flagged up the fact that abuse was taking place at Garlands hospital, and it told the trust and the health authority. Unfortunately, it was ignored. The director, Ann Dawson, should be praised for her diligence and persistence. I am rather annoyed that when Carlisle MIND wrote to the health authority asking for funding for another five years to allow it to continue with its work, the health authority agreed to fund it for only one year. Whether we like it or not, an organisation with money for one year only that rocks the boat too much may not receive money for following years. I shall return to that subject later.
What issues, national and local, have resulted from the report? First, it is obvious that the trust had structural problems when was it was set up in 1994. It was a community and mental health trust. The majority of the effort and resources went into the community, and
122WH
the hospital probably came second. I do not want to say too much about the new structure of health care in Cumbria because the Minister already knows my views. However, from 1 April, Cumbria will have a single mental health trust. I was initially worried about its size, but I believe that it will allow the trust to concentrate on giving the community a good mental health service, which is timely.
Another important factor is funding. We can blame various causes, but mental health has been underfunded for generations. Although we tend to concentrate on acute cases, it is time to ensure sufficient funding, nationally and locally, for mental health trusts. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Another important aspect is the way in which the Government treat non-executive members of trusts. The chair of the trust, Mary Styth, was summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State. The chief executive of the trust was suspended for more than a year, and was given the opportunity to plead his case. He underwent a disciplinary procedure and was rightly dismissed. However, I believe that non-executive and executive members of trusts should be treated equally and that both should have a right of appeal. I accept that members are appointed for a fixed term, but if they are dismissed they should have the opportunity to plead their case.
Next, I wish to mention the police. I make no bones about it: I would like to have seen the perpetrators of the abuse brought before the courts. However, my impression is that when we have problems in our hospitals, whether in Cumbria or elsewhere, the police adopt the unofficial national policy that such matters are better dealt with through internal disciplinary procedure than through the courts.
I greatly admire Cumbria police; I am sure that the Minister would agree that it is one of the best police forces in the world. Crime in Cumbria has been reduced by 21 per cent. in the past year. However, I am worried that no prosecutions were brought. I know that it is difficult, and that mentally ill people do not make good witnesses, but I believe that the two nurses who made the allegations and those who were disciplined were not interviewed. I do not know that for definite, but I have corresponded about the case with the chief constable. If the Association of Chief Police Office has a national policy of not getting involved in cases in hospitals and institutions, I suspect that the Minister should attend to it.
The future of the external reviews also needs thought. Will the new system set up by the Commission for Health Improvement supersede the external reviews such as the one at the Garlands hospital? A major flaw in the review was exposed by the commission's report. The first external review gives the impression that no consultants or doctors were involved in any of what happened at the Garlands hospital. Those conducting the review failed to interview the consultant concerned. I understand that he was off sick with a broken leg, but that should not have precluded his giving evidence. It was only when the commission looked into the matter that some responsibility was laid upon the consultant. Are external reviews now in the past, with that function to be taken over by the commission, or will they run parallel?

123WH
A general question that I want to raise is how organisations such as MIND in Carlisle can be funded so as to retain an independent voice when they want to criticise an authority. It is not fair for an institution to have to depend for money on an organisation that it monitors.
The report has highlighted several problems that, hopefully, will now be tackled by the agencies concerned, especially the trust. We must look in a positive way to the future and hope for the restoration of public confidence and the improvement of the hospital's reputation. The vast majority of staff who worked at Garlands and who now work at the Carleton clinic are professional and conscientious and look after their patients well. However, if the hospital is to have a clean bill of health, the commission should return to conduct an audit; I shudder to use the word Ofsted. I understand that improvements have already been made. The commission needs to establish that it is satisfied that the people of north Cumbria and Carlisle have the mental health service that they require.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on initiating the debate and on his presentation of the arguments. I pay tribute to the work that he has done and continues to do to improve NHS services in his constituency. Carlisle has a powerful champion for the national health service in my hon. Friend.
The North Lakeland Healthcare NHS trust provides a range of mental health and community health services for a mainly rural area from a number of sites across north Cumbria. Last year 63,500 patients were treated by the trust, which provides a wide range of services from paediatrics and community midwifery to mental health services for all ages. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about those services.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the findings of the various inquiries into the events at the North Lakeland Healthcare NHS trust. I appreciate his efforts in bringing those matters to the attention of Ministers. A clearly unacceptable state of affairs was allowed to develop in the trust. Standards of patient care and treatment fell seriously short of what we expect from the national health service. In addition, the trust failed to deal properly and effectively with abuses, which had been taking place over several years, as my hon. Friend made clear.
Allegations of abuse were first brought to the trust's attention in May 1996 by student nurses working in Garlands hospital. Those allegations were investigated by the trust's patient services manager and training manager. At that time, the internal trust inquiry concluded that
"the type of patient in this ward leads to a marked difference between theory and practice"
and that
"some of the difficulties encountered may have been created by the students' understanding of the relationship between theory and practice".
124WH
That is totally unacceptable. No disciplinary action was taken and no report was made to the police. It was the failure at that stage to take effective action to deal with obvious evidence of unacceptable practices in the trust that lay at the heart of the subsequent events.
In December 1998, as my hon. Friend made clear, two bank nurses made further complaints about the treatment of patients in Kielder House ward in the same hospital. The complaints investigation uncovered other aspects of care that gave cause for serious concern. One member of staff was dismissed, one resigned and three were given warnings. I would like to express my gratitude and admiration to those two nurses. It was their actions that finally began the process that led to measures being taken to deal with the appalling treatment of NHS patients in the hospital. Those two nurses acted in the best traditions of the nursing profession.
The former chief executive of the trust met the police in January 1999 to appraise them of the draft report into the allegations, which could lead to suspensions and disciplinary action against staff. As a result of that discussion, the police concluded that it was not an issue for them as there was insufficient information to justify further investigation into the actions of any individual. As my hon. Friend is aware, the trust initiated a further internal investigation.
I understand that the police have now been sent copies of both internal investigations and are currently reviewing the evidence.
My hon. Friend was concerned that there was a national policy not to prosecute cases of alleged criminal behaviour by people in hospitals. I can assure him that no such national policy exists. Anybody who works in the NHS is subject—just like all of us—to the full operation of the criminal law, and that will continue to be the case.
My hon. Friend is also aware that, following that internal investigation, an independent external review was instigated by the Northern and Yorkshire NHS Executive regional office. The report of the independent external review found, in particular, an unacceptable culture of care, which allowed
"unprofessional, counter-therapeutic and degrading, even cruel, practices"
to take place. It also found that the governance of the trust was at risk through a significant blurring of roles and responsibilities between the chair and the chief executive, and that the trust lacked an atmosphere of openness and had no effective arrangements in place to ensure proper clinical governance.
The responsibility for the continuation of such a regime in any NHS trust must lie squarely and properly with the chairman of that trust. That is why we did not hesitate in removing her from her position. Chairs in the NHS are directly appointed by Ministers with the clear remit to deliver health services of the highest possible quality, which was not happening in the North Lakeland trust. The abuse and mismanagement on the scale experienced in North Lakeland meant that the chairman's position was not sustainable. Although the former chair was responsible for the overall management of the trust and must take responsibility for its failings, it was clear that senior management were also at fault. A number of disciplinary actions against

125WH
senior managers have followed. To date, the chief executive and the director of personnel have been dismissed, and a range of serious disciplinary actions have been taken against six other members of staff at the trust.
We took the decision to send in the Commission for Health Improvement. The commission reviewed the previous reports and examined the management, provision and quality of care provided across the trust. It found that there was
"an almost complete absence of effective corporate management and clinical governance processes—in effect, a whole systems failure."
The Government accept the commission's findings, and we expect the acting chief executive and chair to take on board the recommendations and to implement the action plan drawn up to address them. I have asked my Department's regional office to work closely with the trust and the health authority to ensure radical improvements to the management and the delivery of services at North Lakeland. It is important that the community served by the trust can draw a line under the appalling sequence of events to secure a future marked by the highest quality of care.
Action being taken now in the light of the CHI's report will be vital to achieving that. I am pleased that since publication of the commission's report a number of important developments have taken place. An action plan to address all the commission's recommendations has been implemented; a service staff skill mix review was started in December and a draft report is due to be produced by today; clinical governance training for all board members has taken place and further sessions have been held with senior managers and clinicians.
The trust is actively reviewing and re-defining its corporate values with patients, carers and staff. Discussions have been initiated with the local community health council and the local branch of MIND to establish a patients council, which will be useful. The Northern Centre for Mental Health is supporting the trust in reviewing the allocation and responsibilities for standards and quality across the trust.
A user-focused complaints policy was introduced in November. Complaints are now valued as opportunities to learn about and improve services. My hon. Friend will be aware that a comprehensive review of nursing standards across the trust is also being carried out.
We have reorganised management structures in the NHS in north Cumbria. The North Lakeland trust will be dissolved on 31 March, to be replaced by a districtwide dedicated mental health and learning disabilities trust. That will provide the opportunity to refashion a modern, efficient and effective mental health service appropriate to meeting the needs in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The action taken will help to ensure that these events do not happen again. I welcome the intention of the Commission for Health Improvement to review the new trusts in north Cumbria one year after its report on the North Lakeland trust. I hope that a very different picture will emerge. My hon. Friend asked me to ensure that we would revisit the trust, as it were, and I assure him that we will.
126WH
My hon. Friend also raised important points about checks and balances in the system, and about how groups representing patients and users can be heard effectively. I should make it clear that the Commission for Health Improvement found a whole systems failure. The trust was responsible for the appalling circumstances about which we have spoken. I praise the contribution of the local branch of MIND, which raised its concerns with the trust and the health authority. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his comments on MIND, as it stood up for patients at Garlands hospital.
The Government's reforms are helping to renew public confidence in the NHS through greater involvement than in the past of patients, carers and the public in the planning and the development of health services. The Government are determined to ensure that the voice of the patient is heard loudly and clearly in the new NHS. The NHS cannot operate behind closed doors and keep patients in the dark. New ways need to be found to take patients into its confidence. The NHS plan sets out how we intend to do that.
This week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave further details of our plans. We intend that every local trust should have its own independent statutory patients forum, run by patients. The forums will have rights to inspect standards of care and cleanliness. A patient will be appointed to serve on the local trust board so that patients' interests are at the heart of local decision making. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome those reforms. In turn, the trust will have to demonstrate that it has responded to the concerns of the patients forum.
Other changes that we are making include ensuring that patients are regularly asked for their views on their care, and requiring trusts to publish a prospectus to set out how they intend to address patients' concerns. A new patient advocacy and liaison service will be established in every trust to give patients on-the-spot help with care and treatment problems. A new complaints system, more independent than the old one, and a new, independently commissioned and independent advocacy service will be available in every area when a patient needs specialist help with a complaint.
At health authority level, independent local advisory forums that will include patients will scrutinise the whole local health service. There will be more patients' representatives at every level in the health service. That will include existing organisations such as the General Medical Council, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement, and new organisations such as the new independent appointments commission and the independent reconfiguration panel. Patients will have seats at the top table.
The issues in the North Lakeland trust should not be considered in isolation. The Government are committed to delivering significant improvements to the NHS across north Cumbria. Year on year, we have increased the resources to the NHS in my hon. Friend's constituency. This year has seen a cash increase of more than £19 million, which is 6.4 per cent. above inflation, or a 9 per cent. increase in cash terms. Next year, we shall ensure a real terms increase of 6 per cent., which is more than £17 million in cash terms.

127WH
My hon. Friend was concerned about the financing of mental health services, and I agree with many of his comments about the inadequate funding that has dogged them for many years. That is why I hope that he shares our commitment to modernising, investing in and improving mental health services, as set out in the NHS plan published in the summer. I accept that much is to be done, but new, dedicated funding is coming on stream.
I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree that the trust needs to move forward, and in so doing it must ensure that its patients and the whole community enjoy a relationship of full confidence and trust in the services that it provides. That is what every member of staff in the trust wants and is committed to achieving. It is what my hon. Friend and I both want to happen, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that it does.

Northern General Hospital, Sheffield
1.30 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate, as it provides an opportunity for the Government to make a statement on the record about an issue of serious concern to all those involved with the transplant service at the Northern General hospital, Sheffield. That includes the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and other local Members, all of whom have been concerned about the service, which covers quite a wide area.
I intend to cover three main areas in the debate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to each of them at the appropriate time. First, I will examine the rationale behind any move to reduce the number of transplant centres in the UK as a whole. Secondly, I will talk about the service in Sheffield in particular, and the valuable role that it plays within the NHS. Thirdly, it is important to discuss how decisions about service changes in the NHS are made, as that has been a source of complaint from many of the people who have contacted me on the issue.
There has been an underlying assumption behind the review of cardiothoracic transplant surgery that the national specialist commissioning advisory group—NSCAG—has been carrying out for the Department of Health that there are too many cardiothoracic transplant centres, and some should be closed. I understand that that is the brief to which it has been working. However, I suggest to the Minister that to accept such a strategy of fewer units, which are by definition further apart, may be selling the NHS short.
My vision for the NHS, which I hope that the Government share, is that it should continue to be one of the best health services in the world. In my view, it would be disastrous for the NHS to end up as some kind of safety net service that withdraws from the more complex and expensive procedures that some people will always need. In that respect, I can see the need for the skills of transplant centres growing rather than reducing over the coming years.
Mr. Steve McCabe: Is it not the case that at the very time when we are trying to expand the number of organ donors, it makes no sense to reduce the number of centres? If anything, there may be a need for some rebalancing of the geographical areas for harvesting donors. We should concentrate on that, to get the best distribution throughout the country, rather than concentrating on resources in the south-east.
Mr. Allan: That intervention helps to move us on to the issue of the shortage of organ donors, which has been one of the driving forces behind the strategy that has been set out. My presumption is that the shortage of organ donors is a problem that we could overcome. We should be tackling that, rather than closing the centres that could actually do the operations if the donations were occurring. I agree that there is currently a shortage of organ donations. The answer is not to give up but to campaign actively to increase the number. The Northern General itself ran a successful campaign in Sheffield before Christmas, using the local media and getting thousands of people to sign up for donor cards.

129WH
I am interested in schemes such as the credit card scheme, as it seems that the vast majority of people these days carry a credit card. If that were also a donor card, that would be an immediate and straightforward way of identifying someone as a donor. We are only beginning the process of expanding donation. It is true that the effort to expand the number of donors may be set back by current events surrounding organ removal without consent, but the Government could and should make a clear distinction between those unfortunate events and consensual organ donation to save lives. There are some good examples of how consensual organ donation works. I hope that the Government will be clear about not allowing that to be dragged into a debate about non-consensual removal of organs, which all of us would quite rightly condemn.
The Sheffield Heart and Lung Transplant Society has put it to me that a review of the donor zones mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), which decide which units receive which organs, would create a more efficient service and possibly make the existing transplant centres more effective. We are also witnessing the advance of new technologies that may expand the possibilities for medical intervention. We have recently debated the advances in stem cell research, which could create new ways to regenerate organs. There are advances in mechanical devices all the time. Those new techniques will require the skills necessary to prevent rejection, and to work with new tissue or implanted mechanical devices, that have been developed in transplant centres throughout the country.
What a travesty it would be if new technical solutions came on stream but there were no medical staff with the experience to use them. The present transplant staff have been trained all over the world for 15 years to achieve the skills necessary even to begin some of the procedures. They work in close-knit teams and achieve great successes. They, in turn, train future medical staff in these highly specialised skills.
The closure of units will disrupt that pattern and risk the NHS losing skilled people, and the global market for staff with transplant skills cannot be ignored. In any reconfiguration, there is the potential to lose people with vital skills who will train the next generation of staff in the new techniques. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is not incredibly short-sighted in the long run to risk the loss of skills when major medical advances are anticipated that will create a need for more, not fewer, staff with these specialisms.
Most importantly, a reduction in the network may have a damaging effect on patient care. The seriousness of the matter was underlined by a submission from members of the Sheffield patients group. They told me that the typical procedure for a patient undergoing a cardiothoracic transplant begins with an assessment of the suitability of the patient for a transplant, which involves a four-day stay in hospital. There is then a two-year wait, with various episodes of in-patient and out-patient treatment. The transplant surgery itself requires an in-patient stay of about three weeks. After being discharged, the patient must attend hospital for a minimum of four hours a week for the first four weeks, fortnightly for the next four weeks, monthly for the next six months, quarterly for the next year and every six months thereafter. In such an intensive period of
130WH
attendance at the hospital, its geographical location is much more significant than it would be if a patient went in and out of hospital only once.
With such an intensive treatment schedule, any increase in the distance travelled is a major burden for the patient, not only in time, money and so on, but in health terms, as patients are very frail when their operations take place. At present, patients from areas such as Hull, Grantham and Nottingham have to travel for up to two hours each way to the Northern General hospital in Sheffield. If they had to go to Manchester or Newcastle—the alternatives if the unit were to close—that would increase to between three and five hours' travelling time each way. On present figures, that would mean that 100 post-operative patients in the area, including those in Barnsley, Sheffield, north Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire would have to travel for six to 10 hours a day. If closure goes ahead, a group of existing patients will have to start travelling those excessive distances immediately.
In addition to the problems for patients and their families who may wish to visit them, closure could significantly increase NHS costs, especially if out-patient appointments had to be changed to include overnight stays because the travelling distance was too burdensome for a two-way journey. That expensive option would, however, have to be considered.
I said that I would refer to the case for the Sheffield unit. In doing so, I am not trying to talk down the other transplant units, as this is not a beauty contest between them. However, I want to place on record comments about the qualities of the Sheffield unit that have been passed to me by patients and others.
The transplant programme started at the Northern General hospital more than 10 years ago, since when it has provided more than 230 patients with successful transplants. The facility was much improved recently with the opening two years ago of the £20 million Chesterman wing, which has some of the best facilities in the country. The team now operating at the Northern General has a tremendous reputation. A study carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons showed that it was one of the most successful in the country. There is an active support group for the unit.
Graham Earle, chairman of the Sheffield Heart and Lung Transplant Patients Society, told the local newspaper, The Star:
"Sheffield has the best records for post transplant survival, the shortest waiting time for pre-transplant assessment and an excellent after-care service. How they can think of shutting it is beyond belief."
We have a first-class unit in a modern building, opened in this Government's term of office, providing a service that is much valued by patients. I am sure that other units are similarly valued by their local groups. An additional factor is important in considering the Sheffield unit: need. There is an acknowledged link between high rates of coronary heart disease and areas of high social deprivation. Similarly, the incidence of lung diseases is higher in areas of certain industrial activities such as mining.
The area served by the Northern General has a very high level of such problems. In the former coalfields of Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, people have suffered from years of poor health caused by

131WH
poverty and the legacy of the former industrial activities. Barnsley and South Yorkshire have the highest heart disease rate in England. Those local factors are reflected in the high demand for cardiothoracic transplants at the unit. That is reflected in an extensive waiting list, which already, sadly, means that some people die before they can be treated. The loss of the Northern General unit would be likely to worsen the situation and leave that high-need population travelling much longer distances for their treatment, increasing their stress, at further cost to their health.
I am worried about the lack of public consultation. I want to leave the Minister in no doubt about the unacceptable nature of the decision-making process in this case. The main source for information has been the local newspaper, The Star. It has done an effective job in putting information into the public domain and has acted as a responsible local watchdog, but it is unfortunate that the Department's process does not appear to have included any more formal system for making the public aware of what is being considered and seeking their views on possible changes. The perception is that the results of the review were to be presented as a fait accompli to the users of the service.
I accept that people making decisions about the reconfiguration of services will always be criticised for not consulting properly by those who feel that they are losing out. Where my political colleagues are in power in local government they have had to deal with exactly that situation. In this case, there does not even seem to have been an attempt at public consultation. That is particularly serious given the nature of the service in question.
Cardiothoracic transplant units, by their nature, create long-term on-going relationships with their patients. I referred to the typical schedule as set out by the patients group in Sheffield when I talked about the need for a good geographical spread of centres. There are already hundreds of patients in the Northern General catchment who are at various stages of treatment and have an expectation of working with the hospital over several years to come. As one of them put it to me, they are very much stakeholders in their own treatment. In that context, the failure to make clear, authoritative public statements about the reorganisation to date has been a serious failing. I hope that the Minister will be willing to do something to remedy that today.
I have one last general point about NHS openness. The Secretary of State was very forthright about that in another context this week. The situation is not exactly comparable to decisions about the treatment that someone has received, but there are similar questions to be answered about the relationship between the NHS and the citizens of this country. We feel a tremendous sense of ownership of our health service and pride in its achievements. I was very conscious of that during the five years that I spent working in the NHS. NHS staff will often go that extra mile because it is for the public benefit. However, the decision-making processes in the NHS have often been remote from the people it serves. I believe that ordinary people can understand the concepts surrounding decisions about NHS service
132WH
delivery. Those who hold power should not be defensive and seek to restrict information but should go out and involve people in the decisions that affect their lives.
The Government came into power with a commitment to save the NHS. I am sure that we will have the partisan debates about how successful they have been ad nauseam over the coming months. I ask the Minister today to consider seriously one aspect of the NHS debate, which would not cost a lot of money: the democratisation of the service. The alternative is to continue to have the NHS damaged by the perception that its users are being treated simply as patients having things done to them and not as full participants who both use the service and have a say in how and where it is delivered.
Ordinary people such as the users of the Northern General transplant centre should be entrusted with the information that they need to be involved in the decision-making process. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment to doing that, and to publishing a full range of information on this particular decision. I hope that she will be able to explain clearly how public consultation will take place, and to set out a detailed timetable for the decisions on the review that will have to be made. I hope that at the end of the process she will be able to announce that the centre of excellence that is the Northern General transplant centre will continue to provide its valuable service within the NHS.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing this debate. I do not disagree with any of his comments on what we expect of the NHS, its openness and its consultation with patients, but I hope that I can make clearer what has been happening in terms of organ transplants.
I would also like to make it clear that, as one of the transplant units under consideration is in Birmingham and is located in my constituency, it is important that I state publicly that, despite taking this debate here in Westminster Hall, I will play no part in the decision-making process to identify the units that will be consolidated. It is also a sign of the strong feelings of the hon. Members who represent the three constituencies in which the units are located that they are here. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for his intervention, as he is correct when he says that we should do everything that we can to increase the number of organ donations. I went through the background briefing and was struck by the number of letters that we had received from various Members. This issue goes across all parties, and people feel very strongly about it.
In terms of organ transplants, we are in a good position in this country. Over the past 30 years, organ transplantation has become established as the best treatment for people suffering complete failure of vital organs. In the case of liver transplant and cardiothoracic transplant, that is heart, heart-lung and lung transplants, the procedure is literally life-saving. In the case of kidney failure, renal dialysis can sustain people while they wait for a suitable organ to become

133WH
available, but to put that into context, currently we have approximately 3,000 transplant operations, with organs from 900 donors, and there are more than 6,000 people on the transplant waiting list. More than 8 million people have joined the NHS organ donor register, but one of the difficulties is that only a very small percentage of those dying are suitable as organ donors. The main source of organs is from people who have died from sudden brain injury such as a stroke or resulting from a road accident, and there was an assumption in the early 1990s that the numbers would continually increase, and while I of course welcome the reduction in road accidents, it does have some consequences.
Last February, there was a review in response to a number of important issues that had arisen concerning organ transplantation, including a report on the future of organ transplant services by the Royal College of Surgeons of England. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announced measures that, taken together, provided a comprehensive strategy for the development and reorganisation of transplant services in this country. He accepted the RCS's recommendations on minimum levels of staffing for transplant units. The recommendation was that, because so much organ transplantation takes place at night or over the weekend, surgeons would work no more than a one in four on-call rota. That would require a minimum team of five surgeons. Currently, very few organ transplant units meet that requirement.
The hon. Member for Hallam raises the issue of training, but unless the unit and the programme itself are of a sufficient size, training cannot take place. He mentions future technologies, but those are very likely to require different skills that are already being developed in a number of the non-transplant units. While the renal transplant service is affected by these issues, work to address them is at a much earlier stage, so I will concentrate, as he has, on the cardiothoracic services.
Our national cardiothoracic transplant service is recognised as being among the best in the world, and we are rightly proud of it. Following its designation as a national service in 1986, it has been restricted to relatively few centres, preventing the proliferation of a large number of cardiac centres, as happened in some other countries, in the belief that the number of organs would continue to increase. Four new adult cardiothoracic transplant centres were designated, so that by 1991 there were seven adult centres in England.
I am worried that there may be confusion. Just because there is a greater concentration of cardiothoracic transplant services, would not in any way affect what we expect from the expansion of cardiac surgery, which would happen in many places. The hon. Gentleman correctly referred to the very high incidence of heart disease in his area. There will be a continued expansion of the service, so it is not "instead of" but "as well as".
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister has quite rightly drawn attention to the importance of specialisation. I wonder whether she would care to pay tribute to the work of New Heart, New Start at Wythenshawe hospital, in Manchester, which has raised £1. 8 million for the construction of a
134WH
dedicated heart transplant ward, which will give Wythenshawe the only fully comprehensive heart transplant unit in the whole of western Europe.
Ms Stuart: This is the kind of thing that could get me into trouble. I would not wish not to pay tribute to extraordinary local fundraising, but my paying tribute to those activities should not be seen as indication that I take sides in the very close race between Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has such an active local organisation, but the decision is still open.
I return to what has happened in the Northern General hospital in Sheffield, because it is one of the new centres. The others were St. George's hospital in London, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham and Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester. The three original centres were Papworth hospital in Cambridge, the Freeman hospital in Newcastle and, perhaps the best-known of all, the Harefield hospital in Middlesex. Hon. Members may be aware that the programme at St. George's has now been suspended following an unusual run of poor results last year, and the Commission for Health Improvement will be investigating that.
The early promise of expansion of cardiothoracic transplantation has not been fulfilled. Our assumption, in the early 1990s, that the number of available organs would expand has proved wrong, as a result of improvements in road safety and the prevention of strokes in younger people. Those are important health gains, which of course we all welcome, but they have had consequential effects.
For example, between 1990 and 1999, deaths from road traffic accidents in people aged 16 to 59, the usual age for adult heart and lung donors, fell by nearly 40 per cent. from 2,893 to 1,820. That is clearly very good news, but it has had an inevitable effect on the supply of organ donors. In the past five years, the number of organ donors under 60 has fallen by 15 per cent. The fall could have been greater had it not been for the dedication of intensive care units and the efforts of transplant co-ordinators and transplant teams in identifying donors, alongside our continuing efforts to increase organ donation, such as running major campaigns with credit card companies, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is also the Boots initiative to persuade people to join the register. I think that he is absolutely right when he refers to the mood of the time.
We are having this debate after Alder Hey, and we face a significant challenge in re-establishing trust. It was interesting that many of the Alder Hey parents said that they would have given permission if only they had been asked properly. We will drive the issue of informed consent throughout the NHS. I know that in some areas extremely valuable work is going on with ethnic minorities to improve rates of organ donation.
We recognise that, however successful we are in arranging organ procurement, the supply of hearts and lungs, which come only from younger donors, will remain severely limited. Despite all our efforts, the impact on the cardiothoracic transplant programme has been considerable. Adult cardiothoracic transplant operations—heart, heart-lung and lung transplants—performed by the centres fell from 423 in 1995 to only 290 last year. During the same period, heart transplants performed in the seven centres in England fell from 262 to only 172.

135WH
We are committed to maintaining excellence, but a difficult decision must be made on the number of centres so that the coverage of the surgical teams can be maintained. We have accepted the advice of the Royal College of Surgeons in its 1999 report on minimum levels of staffing. It will be evident to hon. Members that, with such complex treatment, if the number of transplants falls below a certain level, the members of the transplant team will begin to lose their skills and standards may fall. We must ensure that each transplant team is well staffed with access to all the support that it needs. It must perform enough operations to maintain a high level of skill in all the members of the team, and it is essential to ensure that the service remains of the highest possible quality for the sake of patients.
The national specialist commissioning advisory group is responsible for advising on which services should be provided nationally. The group considered the impact of the various factors and recommended last year that the national programme should be delivered from four centres in England. That would allow each unit the optimum infrastructure to support a programme of at least 50 heart transplants, which would allow each surgeon to perform an average of 10 heart transplants a year. That size of programme would also maintain the skills of the whole multidisciplinary team and would ensure that properly resourced organ retrieval teams are available to retrieve and make use of all usable organs.
Those recommendations are fully supported by many organisations, including the Royal College of Surgeons and the cardiothoracic transplant advisory group of UK Transplant. Dr. Roger Boyle, director of coronary heart disease services, has been consulted and fully supports the proposals. The Government have agreed that the principles are right and that some reconfiguration of the service is necessary if we are to maintain the high quality of the best services.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about the long-term relationship that patients build up with a particular team. They develop strong ties and loyalties and the prospect of any change is disturbing. The Government want to keep disruption of patients and
136WH
transplant teams to a minimum. One way of achieving that is to maintain the larger programmes, as far as possible, but any changes to the service will affect some patients. I stress that if any reconfiguration of teams involves loss of cardiothoracic surgeons because we want to keep teams together, we would strive to replace them so that other cardiac surgery, particularly to fit in with the national service framework and expansion of services, also happens.
Most patients on the waiting list will be treated by the team that they know. However, in future, some new patients may have to travel further to a transplant unit. Many patients already travel long distances, as they would have to do for any highly specialised national service. In the case of most highly specialised services, there will always be tension between improving geographical access and maintaining clinical excellence.
The hon. Gentleman referred to patient involvement and the national service. The provision of the service has never been a question of money. The issue is not about making financial savings but about where the service should be provided to meet national demand.
On patient consultation, we hope that the conclusions of the current study will be available in the not-too-distant future so that people can comment on the discussion document. The important point is that we are totally committed to a first-class transplantation service in this country, and we shall continue to do our best, as part of our work on informed consent, to ensure that organ donors carry donor cards. No decision has been made on which hospital will be chosen, but it will be made in the best interests of ensuring that the facilities—
Mr. Eric Insley: When?
Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me. The discussion document will be issued soon and I cannot make an announcement today. However, I take on board what has been said about patient involvement. We all agree that we want a service that is in the best interests of patients. With a national service, patients may have to travel, but the reward is better care.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Barrack Accommodation (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) alter and (b) expand barrack accommodation in Scotland; and at which locations. [146175]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The major barracks in Scotland are:

  Fort George, near Inverness;

  Redford Barracks, Edinburgh;

  Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh;

  Army Training Regiment and Recruitment Selection Centre at Glencorse, near Edinburgh;

  Royal Marines Base Condor, Arbroath;

  HMS Neptune, Faslane;

  RNAS Prestwick;

  RAF Kinloss, Moray;

  RAF Lossiemouth, Moray.

  Apart from routine property maintenance, the only plans for significant alterations to, or expansion of, accommodation at these sites involve:
  The expansion of both administrative and Junior Ranks Single Living Accommodation at Faslane, with the relocation of the Fleet Royal Marine Protection Group from Royal Marine Base Condor.
  The building of barrack accommodation to replace an existing facility at RAF Lossiemouth in Moray.
  The Royal Navy will be converting RNAS Prestwick to a Forward Operating Base with effect from April 2002 and in so doing has plans to dispose of one of the two sites at Prestwick, which is known as the Greensite and is surplus accommodation.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if a cost-benefit analysis under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was conducted for the recent chemically evoked seizure experiments conducted on guinea pigs; and if he will make a statement; [147181]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to apply the same cost-benefit analysis requirements in respect of animal experiments as apply to industry under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [147180]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 all proposals for licences to undertake work involving animals have a requirement to have determined the cost-benefit analysis of the research.

  This type of analysis is undertaken as part of the formal ethical review procedure required by the Home Office. It assesses all proposals in detail, prior to submission to the Home Office, to determine whether the benefits likely to result from the project outweigh the cost in suffering to
  184W
  the animals to be used. This assessment includes the appropriateness of the animal use and the measures to be taken to minimise suffering. It thus demonstrates that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using living animals, to reduce numbers of animals used in particular studies; and, to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, a process known in animal welfare circles as the 3Rs.

  The chemically evoked seizure research involving guinea-pigs was conducted under a project licence that had been through this rigorous review process. The research was required to provide UK Service Personnel with the best possible medical countermeasures against nerve agent poisoning. To do this it is essential to understand the actions of nerve agents and test possible therapeutic drugs. This research has provided a better understanding of nerve agent-induced seizures, and suggested approaches to their prevention or reversal by the use of anticonvulsant drugs. In addition, the methods developed during this research led to a significant advance, in that many parameters were able to be assessed within the same animal, reducing the number of animals required.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1), pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 249W, on Type 45 destroyers, if the DFM contract resolves conflicts between (a) the prime contractor's incentives to deliver the first batch at a price below the maximum price, (b) the additional cost of employing two yards to design and assemble the first three ships and (c) an unsolicited proposal from BAE Systems Marine for sole sourcing of the assembly of the Type 45 ships; and if he will make a statement; [147531]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 248W, on the Type 45 destroyer, what incentives there are in the DFM contract for BAE Systems Electronics to deliver below the maximum price; and if he will make a statement. [147528]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 31 January 2001:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Type 45 Destroyer Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture (DFM) contract. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The DFM contract has a successive target arrangement which incentivises the Prime Contractor to deliver below the maximum price by increasing the profit he can earn as his costs decrease. This contract does not envisage an alternative procurement strategy or the unsolicited bid. The pricing of this contract matches the existing procurement strategy, in which there is an integrated project design team composed of personnel from Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems Marine, with work on the first three ships distributed among the two companies. Although it could be argued that there is some additional cost for the first three ships inherent in this strategy.

  185W
  we believe this to be easily outweighed by the benefits of subsequent competition for which it provides. Any alternative procurement strategy would have to be judged against these broader criteria, not just the price of the DFM contract. Any change to the procurement strategy would need to be approved by the Ministry of Defence and would require the contract to be re-negotiated.

  Haslar Hospital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many consultants have resigned from service at Haslar Hospital in each of the last three years. [146708]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of consultants who left the armed forces on premature voluntary retirement in each of the last three years while serving at the Royal Hospital Haslar are as shown. The period between the acceptance of an application to leave and the date of leaving may be up to 18 months.

  Year

  Consultants

  1998

  2

  1999

  6

  2000

  8

  Army Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about trends in the number of regular soldiers stationed in Scotland since 1995. [145899]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The Ministry of Defence produces figures showing the numbers of Regular Army personnel based in Scotland as at 1 July each year. The latest available official figures are shown in the table.

  Number of UK Regular1 Army personnel in Scotland: 1 July 1995 to 2000

  Date

  Officers

  Soldiers

  All ranks

  1 July 1995

  243

  2,344

  2,587

  1 July 1996

  292

  3,161

  3,453

  1 July 1997

  351

  2,602

  2,953

  1 July 1998

  388

  3,367

  3,755

  1 July 1999

  373

  3,441

  3,814

  1 July 20002

  2422

  23,739

  24,161

  1 Figures exclude Gurkhas, Full-time Reserve Service Personnel, Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and mobilised reservists

  2 1 July 2000 figures for Scotland are provisional

  JSF Aircraft
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what protections he has negotiated with the US Department of Defense for the eventuality that the new US Administration cancel the JSF project. [147567]

  Mr. Hoon
  Any decision by either JSF partner to withdraw from the programme is covered by the standard conditions in the JSF MOU. A copy of this document is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much will be paid, and over what period, to the US Department of Defence as the British contribution to the EMD phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project. [147565]
  186W
  Mr. Hoon
  The UK contribution to the US for the EMD phase of the JSF programme amounts to some £1.3 billion. This will be paid over the 12 year period October 2001 to March 2013. A further £600 million will be spent, some in the US, on UK specific requirements outside of the EMD activity.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications the privatisation of New DERA will have for the UK participation in the JSF project; and if he will make a statement. [147569]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. The arrangements for UK participation in the JSF programme take into account the creation of New DERA.

  Malaria
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel deployed to Sierra Leone have been diagnosed with malaria or admitted to hospital for investigation since May 2000; what percentage of deployed forces this represents; what his Department's estimate was, previous to deployment, of the percentage effectiveness of protection against malaria the preferred anti-malaria treatment afforded; what percentage of forces deployed to Sierra Leone were administered with anti-malarial treatment before deployment; and if he will make a statement. [147595]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: As of 25 January, there have been 112 confirmed cases of malaria and three suspected cases among Service personnel who have served in Sierra Leone. These figures include personnel who have been referred to hospital for investigation. They represent 1.5 per cent. of deployed forces; 97 per cent. of personnel deployed to Sierra Leone were issued with anti-malarial tablets prior to deployment. It is not normal practice in the field of travel medicine to quote the percentage efficacy of different anti-malarial prophylactic drugs, since the degree of protection can be subject to a wide range of factors; for example, the geographical location, the season, the activities undertaken by the individuals concerned and other types of protection or environmental controls used. Mefloquine is the preferred drug for Sierra Leone as it is more effective than chloroquine and proguanil, and Sierra Leone is a chloroquine-resistant area.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148080]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  All relevant papers will be made available to the Inquiry being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond QC.
  187W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  First Group and Arriva
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the First Group and Arriva. [147472]

  Dr. Howells
  On 10 October 2000, officers of the Director General of Fair Trading visited offices of First Group and Arriva under the powers in section 28 of the Competition Act 1998. The exercise of the Director General's powers of investigation under the Act are a matter for him.

  European Trades Union Confederation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives from the European Trades Union Confederation; and if he will make a statement on the issues discussed. [147519]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Mr. right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not met representatives from the European Trades Union Confederation. I had an introductory meeting with the Secretary General of the Confederation, Emilio Gabaglio, on 11 November 1999 at which we exchanged views on current employment relations issues.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [144078]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Departments' Directorates and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the majority of the Office of Science and Technology's (OST SEB) programme expenditure is channelled through the Research Councils as annual grant-in-aid. The Councils then pay a large number of grants to universities. Providing full details would involve disproportionate cost. In summary, main grants-in-aid are as follows.

  Grant-in-aid paid to Research Councils in 1997–98 to 2000–01

  £000 (net)

  Research Council

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  BBSRC

  183,042

  182,762

  194,182

  202,420

  ESRC

  65,227

  67,506

  70,872

  71,300

  EPSRC

  386,276

  379,444

  404,796

  412,026

  MRC

  289,078

  284,098

  304,538

  319,151

  NERC

  166,150

  173,967

  176,715

  181,450

  PPARC

  197,869

  207,418

  186,680

  205,774

  CCLRC

  1,206

  1,462

  2,000

  2,000

  1 Estimate for year

  OST SEB does commission a small number of consultancies directly. Details are as shown.
  188W

  Consultancy paid by OST SEB

  £

  1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  consultants

  Preparation of SET statistics and Web production

  4,829

  Academic researchers

  —

  University departments

  —

  Total

  4,829

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Consultants

  Poster project—Women's Unit

  11,000

  Public Consultation on Development in the Biosciences

  130,000

  Preparation of SET statistics and Web production

  15,176

  Consultancy assistance with personnel framework

  12,843

  Consultancy assistance with senior Council appointments

  35,218

  Academic researchers

  —

  University departments

  —

  Total

  204,237

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Consultants

  Poster project—Women's Unit

  7,000

  Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences

  208,000

  Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain

  75,000

  Preparation of SET statistics and Web production

  35,000

  Consultancy assistance with senior Council appointments

  20,423

  Academic researchers

  —

  University departments

  —

  Total

  345,423

  31 March 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Consultants

  Research into Women returners to science

  30,000

  Consultancy assistance with senior Council appointments

  101,906

  Academic researchers

  —

  University departments

  —

  Total

  131,906

  Note

  Year defined by when payment made

  Electricity Trading
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the timetable for the implementation of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements. [148481]

  Mr. Hain
  The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) today announced that 27 March remains the target implementation date for the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA). This follows a review of progress by the NETA programme and reflects the fact that the programme is on schedule to meet the timetable announced last October.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public interest immunity certificates(a) he, (b) Ministers of State, (c) junior Ministers and (d) civil servants in his Department have signed in each calendar year from 30 May 1997. [147729]
  189W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: My Department's records show that, since 30 May 1997, two public interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers of this Department, both in 1998. One was signed by a Minister of State and one by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. No certificates were signed by civil servants.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his responsibilities in international bodies represented by the European Commission which, under the Treaty of Nice, will be determined by(a) unanimity and (b) qualified majority voting. [146001]

  Mr. Caborn
  My hon. Friend appears to be referring to the amendments to Article 133 concerning the common commercial policy. This article extends qualified majority voting in principle to the negotiation and conclusion of agreements relating to trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property. However, unanimity will be retained for certain specified matters (i.e. where unanimity is required for the adoption of equivalent internal EU rules, or where the Community has not exercised related internal rule-making powers).

  On certain other matters where competence will continue to be shared between the Community and member states (i.e. trade in cultural, audio-visual, educational, social and human health services) decisions will continue to be reached by consensus. There will be no change to the current arrangements for transport.

  The article also makes clear that member states will still be able to negotiate agreements in international organisations, in so far as such agreements respect Community law and other relevant international agreements.

  Ofcom
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the proposals of Ofcom detailed in the Communications White Paper require legislation to incorporate agencies overseen by his Department; if Ofcom will operate in shadow form; and if he will make a statement. [147615]

  Ms Hewitt
  Legislation is required to transfer the functions of the Radiocommunications Agency and of Oftel to Ofcom, as proposed in Chapter 8 of the White Paper. The Government will consider whether to set up a shadow Ofcom before Royal Assent. In the meantime, we are working closely with all the regulators concerned to plan a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime.

  ECGD
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the operational committees which are responsible to the Management Board of the Export Credits Guarantee Department for overseeing the business functions and operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and on what dates each of these committees was set up. [146646]
  190W
  Mr. Caborn
  The following is the information:

  Operational committees

  Date

  Underwriting Committee

  1992

  Underwriting Technical and Policy Committee

  1992

  Claims and Recoveries Management Committee

  1992

  Tactical Recoveries Committee

  1992

  Cardiff Claims Committee

  1994

  Debt Conversion Committee

  1992

  Market Committee

  1998

  IT Scrutiny Committee

  1997

  Treasury Management Committee

  1999

  Audit Committee

  1994

  Euro
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the recent report of the Centre for Economics and Business Research into the impact of the euro on employment and unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [146947]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have said that they will make an assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Manufacturing and Business Skills
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to publish a White Paper on manufacturing and business skills. [148070]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I intend to publish a White Paper on business (including manufacturing) and skills in the near future.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Hardship Fund
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much money is allocated to the Hardship Fund for the current financial year; which dioceses have been given help from the Hardship Fund; what criteria are applied when distributing the Hardship Fund money; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Hardship Fund for the next financial year. [148031]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The hon. Member refers to the funds the Church Commissioners provide to the Archbishops Council for selective allocation to dioceses to support the cost of parish ministry. The Commissioners must determine annually the total sum available for this purpose, taking into account the other statutory duties laid upon them by this House and by the General Synod of the Church of England.

  In 2001 the Council will allocate £14.9 million provided by the Commissioners for stipend support to thirty dioceses, nearly two-thirds of which will be targeted on dioceses whose financial need is greatest. In addition the Commissioners provide more that £5 million in direct payments to clergy in all dioceses.
  191W
  The dioceses receiving allocations in 2001 are:

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Bradford

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Chelmsford

  Chester

  Coventry

  Derby

  Durham

  Exeter

  Hereford

  Leicester

  Lichfield

  Liverpool

  London

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Norwich

  Portsmouth

  Ripon and Leeds

  St. Albans

  St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

  Sheffield

  Southwark

  Southwell

  Truro

  Wakefield

  Worcester

  York.

  The current allocation formula takes into account diocesan socio-economic factors such as potential income, unemployment and OxLIP (a low income predictor) together with diocesan resources from historic endowments. It is under review and after revision will place greater emphasis on expected levels of giving by parishioners. It is expected that the new proposals will be introduced in 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued concerning the temperature at which combustion of polychlorinated biphenyl should occur in incinerators in order to minimise the emission of dioxins and dibenzofurans. [147512]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has issued a Technical Guidance Note (S2 5.01) for waste incinerators regulated under Part A of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991/SI No. 472, and a guidance note to its inspectors on the requirements of the EC Directive on the incineration of hazardous waste. These notes summarise both the statutory requirements of the Directive and the techniques available for incineration. As a minimum, a combustion 192W
  temperature of 850 deg C in the presence of 6 per cent, oxygen for a period of two seconds after the last injection of combustion air is required, unless it can be shown that the Directive emission limit values are complied with and the levels of dioxins and furans emitted are lower or equivalent to those obtained by applying the temperature and residence time requirements laid down in the Directive. However, if the waste stream contains more than 1 per cent, of halogenated organics (which may include polychlorinated biphenyls) a temperature of 1,100 deg C is required in order to minimise emissions of dioxins and dibenzofurans.

  Road Schemes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the road schemes(a) approved and (b) provisionally approved in (i) the targeted programme of improvements, (ii) multi-model studies and (iii) the local transport settlement, where the primary objective is economic regeneration. [147316]

  Mr. Hill
  "Regeneration and integration" was stated in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" as the primary objective of the following schemes in the targeted programme of improvements:

  Road

  Scheme

  A5

  Weeford-Fazeley Improvement

  A11

  Roudham Heath-Attleborough Dualling

  A27

  Polegate Bypass

  A46

  Newark-Lincoln Improvement

  A120

  Stansted Braintree

  A249

  Iwade-Queenborough Improvement

  A500

  Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass

  A500

  City Road/Stoke Road Junctions

  Regeneration featured strongly in the cases made by authorities for the following schemes accepted as part of the local transport settlement announced on 14 December 2000.

  City

  Scheme

  Accepted schemes

  Leeds

  East Leeds Link Road

  Provisionally accepted schemes

  Birmingham

  A38 Northfield Regeneration Scheme

  Darlington

  Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor

  Dorset

  Weymouth Relief Road

  Durham

  A688 Wheatley Hill to Bowburn

  Norfolk

  Nar Ouse Regeneration Route

  Sandwell

  Cradley Heath Town Centre

  Staffordshire

  Biddulph Bypass

  Staffordshire

  Rugeley Bypass

  Thurrock

  West Thurrock Riverside Regeneration Scheme

  Wakefield

  Hemsworth—A1 Link

  Wakefield

  Glasshoughton Link Road

  Multi-modal studies are not a mechanism for approving road schemes. They are designed to examine options for dealing with transport problems and informing subsequent decisions on investment in transport projects. To date only one report on a multi-modal study, 'Access to Hastings', has been received and is under consideration.
  193W

  Fuel Poor Households
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), on 18 January 2001,Official Report, column 294W, on fuel poor households, if he will estimate on the same basis the number of fuel poor households in each nation and region of the United Kingdom in 1996. [147247]

  Government Office region

  (a) Income including Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest (£000)

  (b) Income excluding Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage interest (£000)

  (c) Income excluding housing expenditure (£000)

  North East

  330

  370

  470

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  560

  650

  770

  West Midlands

  550

  640

  820

  North West

  700

  890

  1,080

  South West

  440

  520

  710

  East Midlands

  360

  440

  560

  Greater London

  480

  670

  930

  Eastern

  360

  450

  630

  South East

  450

  580

  830

  England (£ million)

  24.3

  25.3

  26.8

  1 Assumes fuel costs include those for non-heating purposes.

  2 Due to the manner in which these data are processed and rounded, the total reported nationally differs very slightly from the sum of the individual regions.

  Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria his Department uses for determining need for motorway service areas. [147419]

  Mr. Hill
  Proposals for new motorway service areas (MSAs) are subject to the normal operation of the land use planning system. It is therefore for local planning authorities—or the inquiry Inspector in the event of an appeal—rather than my Department to weigh the need for a proposed MSA. Guidance to planners on how to assess that need is contained in Circular Roads 1–94 and a policy statement which the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), made to the House on 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 611W. Copies of both documents are available from the Library.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if it remains the policy of his Department that a motorway service area is required on the south-western quadrant of the M25 motorway; [147418]

  (2) if he will make it his policy that in future considerations of planning applications and appeals in respect of motorway service areas on the M25 south western quadrant, each application and appeal is considered without a presumption that at least one of the proposed sites must be successful. [147624]
  194W
  Mr. Meacher
  The common definition of a fuel poor household is one that needs to spend in excess of 10 per cent, of household income in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Using data from the latest English House Condition Survey, the following table shows the effect of different options for calculating household income on the number of households defined as fuel poor by Government Office region in 19961.

  Mr. Hill
  The statement to the House by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), on 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 611W, described the Government's policy on the spacing of motorway service areas (MSAs). It explained that this policy was likely to mean that there would be either one or two MSAs on the western side of the M25. The policy did not, and does not, necessarily require an MSA on the south-western sector. Proposals will therefore be considered on their individual planning merits and there is no presumption that either a site within this sector, or any other currently proposed M25 MSA, must be successful.

  Homes Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when, where and for how long(a) the Housing Minister and (b) his officials have met the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the Homes Bill, and if he will indicate the names and titles of those attending the meetings. [147799]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since publication of the Homes Bill on 13 December 2000, I have not met the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML). My last meeting with the CML took place on 4 December, when I addressed their Annual Conference.

  The CML have been involved from the outset in the Home Buying and Selling Advisory Group, which assists the Government in developing its proposals. The Group comprises the major representative bodies with an interest in home buying and selling (including consumers), and officials from DETR and other Departments. It is chaired by Michael Gahagan, Director of Housing at DETR. The Group has met once since publication of the Bill, on 12 January.
  195W
  The CML and the Department have attended two sub-committees of the Advisory Group since publication of the Bill: the Home Condition Report Working Group, at RICS, Great George street, London, on 8 January 2001; and the Home Inspectors Certification Board Steering Group Meeting on Thursday 11 January 2001. Both these meetings were also attended by other stakeholders in the home buying and selling process.

  My officials have had two meetings recently with the CML about our home buying and selling proposals. The first was on 22 November; the second was on 15 December 2000. Both meetings lasted about one and a half hours. Full details of attendees are as follows.

  Meeting at DETR with CML—22 November 2000

  DETR

  Michael Gahagan—Director, Housing Directorate

  David Woodward—Housing Policy, Renewal and Ownership Division

  Steve Nuttall—Principal Research Officer

  Andrew Hannan—Superintending Estates Officer

  Jacqui Marriott—Assistant Policy Adviser

  CML

  Michael Coogan—Director General, CML

  Fiona Hoyle—Senior Legal Adviser

  Shaun Stevens—Housing Policy Adviser

  Meeting to discuss the Homes Bill, at CML, 3 Savile Row, London on 15 December 2000

  DETR

  Michael Gahagan—Director, Housing Directorate, DETR

  Martin Jones—Divisional Manager, Housing Policy, Renewal and Ownership, DETR

  Steve Nuttall—Principal Research Officer, DETR

  Andrew Hannan—Superintending Estates Officer, DETR

  CML

  Michael Coogan—Director General, CML

  Peter Williams—Deputy Director General, CML

  Fiona Hoyle—Senior Legal Adviser, CML

  Shaun Stevens—Housing Policy Adviser, CML.

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names and salaries of the three most senior staff at the Rough Sleepers Unit. [147800]

  Ms Armstrong
  Louise Casey, the Director of the Rough Sleepers Unit, is a member of the Senior Civil Service on fixed-term contract whose salary is within the band £70,000 to £75,000. Gordon Campbell the Deputy Director of the Unit is on secondment from London Borough Grants and DETR reimburses LBG for his employment costs which currently are £54,000. The third most senior member of staff Carol Sweetenham is a band 7 civil servant whose salary is within the pay range for this grade, which is currently £45,526 to £60,095.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual budget is of the Rough Sleepers Unit. [147797]
  196W
  Ms Armstrong
  The Rough Sleepers Unit was established in April 1999 and has a three-year programme expenditure budget up to 31 March 2002 of just over £198 million. This includes a number of funding streams previously administered by other Government Departments, most notably the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Almost £73 million of the available funding is capital expenditure administered on the Unit's behalf by the Housing Corporation to provide a range of temporary and permanent accommodation for rough sleepers. The remainder meets the on-going costs of a range of accommodation and support services throughout England to help rough sleepers move away from the streets and to rebuild their lives. The Unit has the ability to use its three-year budget in a flexible manner. Therefore it would not be appropriate to give an annual budget figure.

  Over the same three-year period, the Rough Sleepers Unit has an administration budget of £3.641 million.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance has been issued to managing agents of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme(a) on the need to publish analysis of works carried out under the scheme (b) the frequency and format of publication and (c) to whom this information should be made available. [147811]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: As part of their contracts for managing the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, Eaga Partnership Ltd. and Eastern HEES Ltd. are required to collect energy efficiency data in regard to homes improved through the programme. This information will be provided annually free of charge to all local authorities in England1. Summary monthly reports will be posted on the scheme managers' internet websites to reach all those who have an interest. We are currently in discussion with the scheme managers about the exact format of the data collected.
  1 HEES is a devolved scheme run in England since 1 June 2000. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own separately funded grant programmes.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many households have benefited from grants paid under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme for(a) insulation improvements only, (b) heating improvements only and (c) heating and insulation improvements; and how many households have benefited under New HEES plus from grant assistance for, (i) insulation improvements only, (ii) central heating installation only and (iii) central heating installation and insulation improvements. [147812]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) was launched on 1 June 2000 and is run by two scheme managers in England: Eaga Partnership Ltd. and Eastern HEES Ltd. with the actual work carried out by independent installers. The table as shown identifies the number of households, which have received either (a) insulation, (b) heating or (c) insulation and heating measures through either HEES or HEES Plus and where the invoice for the work has been received and paid.
  197W

  Measure

  HEES

  HEES plus

  Total

  Insulation only

  31,000

  19,800

  50,800

  Heating only

  400

  1,700

  2,100

  Insulation and Heating

  400

  1,250

  1,600

  Total

  31,800

  22,750

  54,500

  A further 82,000 works orders have been placed with installers. At present it is taking installers up to six weeks to send in their invoices from the date of actual installation. It is therefore, likely that a significant proportion of these orders have been completed but not as yet invoiced.

  Sport
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost is of exempting sporting rights in 1998–99 from the valuation role in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [147889]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Sporting rights have not been rateable in England and Wales since 1 April 1997. This was estimated to cost £4 million to £5 million in 1997.

  Sporting rights have been exempt from valuation rolls in Scotland since 1 April 1995. This was estimated to cost £2 million to £3 million in 1997.

  Sporting rights have not been rateable in Northern Ireland since 1 April 2000. Before then, certain recreational sporting rights would have been eligible for 65 per cent, rate relief, while commercial sporting rights would not have had such relief. Costs for 1998–99 are not readily available.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place with the Better Regulation Task Force about the proposals for rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in the Green Paper for Local Government Finance. [147891]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Better Regulation Task Force responded to the Green Paper and raised a number of issues, although it did not comment on the proposed rate relief for small businesses and non-profit making bodies including sports clubs. These proposals would provide additional rate relief for qualifying sports clubs. We do not expect them to increase the administrative requirements that clubs meet at present in applying for discretionary rate relief under the current system.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport regarding the Green Paper on Local Government Finance and the Government's Sports Strategy. [147892]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" is a Government publication and as such reflects the collective views of Ministers. There were detailed discussions and agreement of its content before publication and there will be further discussions at both official and ministerial level to discuss the responses we have received to the Green Paper and the way forward. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.
  198W

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Strategic Rail Authority will be established; and if he will make a statement. [148392]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority was formally established as an executive non-departmental public body of my Department on 15 January 2001. Members of its Board were appointed on this day. The Authority will commence operation on 1 February when the main provisions of Part IV of the Transport Act 2000 come into force.

  My Department has prepared a financial framework, in accordance with paragraph 16 of schedule 14 to the Transport Act, and a management statement for the Authority. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the House Library. These are working documents, which are likely to be amended as my Department's relationship with the Authority develops. If either document is revised significantly, a new version will be placed in the House Library. Copies of the latest version of both documents are available from my Department's Railways Sponsorship Division.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce his conclusions from the review of the Air Quality Strategy objective for particles. [148393]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was published on 19 January 2000 following an extensive review of the original Strategy. This sets air quality objectives for eight air pollutants that have the potential for significant health effects. These objectives are to be achieved between 2003 and 2008.

  The new Strategy replaces the original objective for particles with new objectives derived from the EU Stage 1 limit values for 2005. This was considered to be the only realistic option in view of the latest information that showed that the original objective would not be achievable in the short term, even with the most ambitious emission reduction measures. The Strategy explains that the new objectives for particles are seen as a staging post and not a final outcome. It goes on to say that the Government are concerned to set their sights beyond the immediate need to comply with the EU limit values, and that work has been set in hand which will enable the prospects for strengthening these objectives to be assessed before the next general review of the Strategy.

  This work is nearing completion. The most significant area of work is likely to be advice from the Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) on the chronic effects of air pollution. To date, the health implications of particle air pollution have tended to focus on the acute, short-term effects. COMEAP's 1998 report suggested that the deaths of over 8,000 vulnerable people may be brought forward and over 10,000 hospital admissions and re-admissions may be associated with short-term air pollution each year. Evidence is now beginning to emerge which suggests that the long-term chronic effects of particle air pollution may

  199W
  be considerably more significant. COMEAP has been asked by the Department of Health to consider the evidence and the Committee is expected to report shortly.

  Advice from COMEAP may, if relevant, be used to support a quantification of the benefits to health from reducing concentrations of particles. These health benefits, along with the information that we already have on the acute health effects of particle pollution, can be considered alongside the latest information on the measures to reduce particle concentrations. A comprehensive study of the costs of emission reduction measures is in hand, as is further modelling work, that will show the impact that recently announced policy measures are likely to have on concentrations of particles over the next few years.

  I now intend the review of the objectives for particles to commence in March, to allow time for these various pieces of work to be completed. I expect to be in a position to consult on proposals for a new objective for particles by the end of June.

  It is not intended to propose a change to the existing objective for particles. It is important that local authorities have a period of stability as they take forward the local air quality management process. Any new objective will be for the longer term.

  In the meantime, the trend in urban air quality is continuing to improve. I announced earlier this month that in 2000 in urban areas there were 17 days of moderate or higher air pollution on average per site, the lowest figure recorded since the series began in 1993. Days of moderate or higher air pollution caused by particles have fallen steeply since 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to the Audit Commission's report into the cost of supporting asylum seekers in London boroughs; and if he will make a statement. [147131]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am not aware that the Audit Commission has published any recent report on the cost of supporting asylum seekers in London boroughs.

  I will, of course, give any such report by the Audit Commission careful consideration once it is received.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his original estimate was of the number of local child curfew orders that would be enforced annually. [148066]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We did not make estimates of the number of local child curfews that would be applied for under the powers introduced in 1998. They are a discretionary matter for local authorities, to be considered in the light of wider strategies to deal with disorder in their areas. The need will depend on local circumstances.
  200W

  Criminal Justice Act
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce legislation further to extend the exemptions in section 34A(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to include additional categories of offender; and if he will make a statement. [148062]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 added offenders subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to the list of those excluded from Home Detention Curfew. I have no plans at present to add any further categories of offender to the 10 categories already excluded.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when, and by whom, he was first informed of the citizenship applications submitted by(a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja on 5 March 1997 and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja on 20 October 1998; and if he will make a statement; [148093]

  (2) what discussions the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) had with ministerial colleagues concerning the application for citizenship by Mr. S. P. Hinduja following the conversation the hon. Member had with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson); and if he will make a statement; [148034]

  (3) when he was first informed of the contact between the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) regarding the application for citizenship from Mr. S. P. Hinduja; and if he will make a statement; [148035]

  (4) if he received any representations from ministerial colleagues or other hon. Members regarding the application for citizenship by Mr. G. P. Hinduja; and if he will make a statement; [148036]

  (5) if (a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja satisfied all the requirements for naturalisation when the decision was taken to grant them citizenship; if exceptions to the requirements were made in either case; and if he will make a statement. [148094]

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

  Young Offenders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target date is for achieving the Government's pledge of halving the national average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders; what progress has been made; and when he expects the target to be achieved. [148064]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1996 the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. Working with the local youth justice services,
  201W
  the Government's target is to halve this by March 2002. Substantial progress has already been made—the national average fell to an estimated 94 days by October 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders under the age of 18 years were sentenced in(a) the magistrates court, (b) the youth court and (c) the Crown court, broken down by type of sentence, indicating in particular how many were given a (i) absolute discharge, (ii) conditional discharge, (iii) fine, (iv) community sentence and (v) custodial sentence in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [147604]

  (2) what (a) custodial and (b) non-custodial disposals are available to the youth court; and on how many occasions each type of disposal has been used by the youth court in respect of young offenders in each of the past five years. [147605]

  Table A: Number of offenders aged 10–17 sentenced at the magistrates court, broken down by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1995–99

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  19991

  Total Sentenced

  5,365

  5,348

  5,301

  5,613

  5,516

  Absolute Discharge

  87

  91

  85

  87

  70

  Conditional Discharge

  1,799

  1,834

  1,805

  1,938

  1,967

  Fine

  2,101

  2,234

  2,056

  2,137

  2,062

  Probation Order

  141

  100

  129

  140

  122

  Supervision Order

  383

  323

  362

  409

  379

  Community Service Order

  182

  151

  195

  177

  176

  Attendance Centre Order

  214

  191

  214

  267

  269

  Combination Order

  68

  49

  68

  59

  69

  Curfew Order

  2—

  2

  1

  5

  11

  Total Community Sentence3

  988

  816

  969

  1,057

  1,026

  Secure Training Order

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4

  5

  Young Offender Institution

  202

  202

  209

  219

  191

  Total Immediate Custody4

  202

  202

  209

  223

  196

  Otherwise Dealt With5

  188

  171

  177

  171

  195

  Table B: Number of offenders aged 10–17 sentenced at the youth court, broken down by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1995–99

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  19991

  Total Sentenced

  59,470

  65,345

  38,869

  75,907

  79,883

  Absolute Discharge

  558

  716

  772

  716

  662

  Conditional Discharge

  20,479

  21,508

  22,308

  23,986

  24,649

  Fine

  12,258

  14,707

  16,376

  18,887

  18,609

  Probation Order

  1,820

  2,235

  2,405

  2,700

  2,813

  Supervision Order

  9,300

  10,013

  10,068

  11,158

  11,442

  Community Service Order

  2,974

  3,269

  3,435

  3,604

  4,114

  Attendance Centre Order

  6,376

  6,366

  6,569

  6,965

  7,542

  Combination Order

  798

  1,127

  1,354

  1,523

  1,625

  Curfew Order

  2—

  11

  36

  149

  300

  Total Community Sentence3

  21,268

  23,021

  23,867

  26,099

  27,836

  Secure Training Order

  2—

  2—

  2—

  94

  173

  Young Offender Institution

  3,592

  3,900

  3,920

  4,198

  4,560

  Total Immediate Custody4

  3,592

  3,900

  3,920

  4,292

  4,733

  Otherwise Dealt With5

  1,315

  1,493

  1,626

  1,927

  3,394

  Table C: Number of offenders aged 10–17 sentenced at the Crown court, broken down by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1995–99

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  19991

  Total Sentenced

  2,965

  3,904

  4,922

  4,774

  4,761

  Absolute Discharge

  4

  7

  4

  6

  6

  Conditional Discharge

  116

  113

  144

  136

  110

  Hospital Order Mental Health Act 1983 S37(l)

  2

  4

  7

  12

  11

  Restriction Order Mental Health Act 1983 S41

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  202W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, showing the number of offenders aged under 18 years sentenced and the sentences imposed in (i) the magistrates court, (ii) the youth court and (iii) the Crown court are given in the tables for the period 1995 to 1999 (the most recent year for which data are available).

  The custodial and non-custodial disposals available to the youth court, and the number of occasions each type of disposal has been used over the past five years by the youth court are also listed in the tables. A number of new orders became available for juveniles in 2000. A new custodial order, the Detention and Training Order was introduced on 1 April 2000 and replaces the secure training order (for 12 to 14-year-olds) and detention in a Young Offender Institution (for 15 to 17-year-olds). New non-custodial disposals, the reparation order and the action plan order, were introduced in June 2000.
  203W

  Table C: Number of offenders aged 10–17 sentenced at the Crown court, broken down by type of sentence, England and Wales, 1995–99

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  19991

  Fine

  21

  21

  28

  26

  24

  Probation Order

  194

  197

  192

  244

  245

  Supervision Order

  460

  580

  819

  867

  858

  Community Service Order

  272

  299

  389

  368

  380

  Attendance Centre Order

  69

  74

  79

  72

  62

  Combination Order

  87

  136

  215

  233

  207

  Curfew Order

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  9

  Total Community Sentence3

  1,082

  1,286

  1,694

  1,785

  1,761

  Detained Under S.53 Children and Young Person Act 1933

  401

  635

  748

  603

  631

  Secure Training Order

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4

  17

  Young Offender Institution

  1,269

  1,760

  2,206

  2,095

  2,076

  Total Immediate Custody4

  1,670

  2,395

  2,954

  2,702

  2,724

  Otherwise Dealt With5

  69

  78

  91

  106

  125

  1 Orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (examples include Reparation Order, Action Plan Order, Parenting Order and Drug Treatment and Testing Order), were piloted in selected areas in late 1998 and 1999, and are recorded as 'otherwise dealt with'.

  2 Not applicable.

  3 Community Sentence comprises: Probation Order, Supervision Order, Community Service Order, Attendance Centre Order, Combination Order and Curfew Order.

  4 Immediate Custody comprises: Secure Training Order and Young Offender Institution.

  5 Otherwise Dealt With includes: Compensation, Hospital or Guardianship Order under the Mental Health Act 1983, Police Cells, Recognizance, Parents to pay fine or compensation or costs, Parents bound over etc.

  Disposals available to the youth court for offenders aged 10–17, England and Wales, 1995–99

  Non-custodial

  Absolute Discharge

  Conditional Discharge

  Fine

  Probation order

  Supervision Order

  Community Service Order

  Attendance Centre Order

  Combination Order

  Curfew Order

  Custodial

  Secure Training Order

  Young Offender Institution

  Otherwise Dealt With1

  1Includes Compensation, Hospital or Guardianship Order under the Mental Health Act 1983, Police Cells, Recognizance, Parents to pay fine or compensation or costs, Parents bound over etc.

  Professional Witnesses
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the use of professional witnesses to gather information; what his estimate is of the increased use of such witnesses since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [148065]

  Mr. Straw
  The report "Speaking up for Justice", published in June 1998, recommended that good practice guidelines for the use of professional witnesses in criminal cases should be developed by the Local Government Association in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We hope to be in a position to issue such guidelines shortly.

  I understand that records are not kept of the number of occasions on which professional witnesses are used.
  204W

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued to date in respect of(a) juveniles and (b) adults; how many are in force; and if he will make a statement. [148073]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At least 150 anti-social behaviour orders have been made since the provision came into force on 1 April 1999. Since the minimum duration of an order is two years, and we are not aware of any orders being discharged, we understand that all of these remain in force.

  It is not possible from the figures available to give an exact breakdown between adults and juveniles. We are, however, aware of at least 50 orders which have been made against persons under 18.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will require the same communications technology to be used across the three emergency services; [147626]

  (2) if he will assess the project work undertaken by the Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority when determining future radio strategies for emergency services. [147629]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Joint working is one of the Government's core principles for delivering efficient and modern public services. The communications systems of each of the emergency services need to be able to meet the particular operational requirements of that service. But the systems also need to support effective interworking between the services. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has therefore asked representatives of the police, fire and emergency ambulance services to put proposals by Easter 2001 to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on how collaboration between those services in communications and in other areas can be encouraged and improved.
  205W
  I would encourage and indeed expect these proposals to take account of project work already in hand by emergency services in different parts of the country.

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for indefinite leave to remain under the concession to those who have suffered domestic violence have been received since its introduction; and how many of those applicants were granted settlement in the UK. [147560]

  Mrs. Roche
  To date, we have recorded 77 applications made under the terms of the concession, of which 47 have been granted settlement. In the other cases, there was insufficient evidence fully to meet the terms of the concession.

  Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people applied for the advertised job of Lieutenant Governor of Jersey; how many applicants were women; how many were shortlisted and how many of these were women. [147847]

  Mr. Straw
  58 applications were received for the post of Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, of which two were from women. 14 applicants, all male, were shortlisted.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend to Guernsey the responsibilities of the new Lieutenant Governor of Jersey. [147846]

  Total incidents of self harm in Her Majesty's prison establishments for women

  Prison

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Askham

  0

  5

  4

  4

  0

  0

  Brockhill

  0

  1

  11

  69

  67

  0

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  312

  0

  97

  234

  46

  Cookham

  32

  49

  46

  23

  15

  0

  Drake Hall

  7

  5

  14

  9

  9

  46

  East Sutton

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Eastwood

  0

  61

  176

  95

  154

  24

  Holloway

  386

  192

  139

  252

  250

  240

  New Hall

  325

  260

  116

  190

  180

  412

  Styal

  156

  108

  92

  96

  144

  12

  Total

  103

  996

  599

  835

  1,053

  780

  1Until 31 March 2000

  The table lists figures of self-harm incidents for all female establishments since 1994–95, but does not, for example, include figures for women's units currently in use in other establishments.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into deaths and incidents of self-harm in women's prisons. [147470]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is a wide range of research studies covering many aspects of self-harm and suicidal behaviour in women's prisons. The Prison Service is planning a new research and evaluation strategy for self-inflicted deaths and self-harm in custody and will take into account the learning from these and other studies.
  206W
  Mr. Straw
  No. The Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey are separate jurisdictions, with their own legislatures, legal systems and judiciaries. Each has its own Lieutenant Governor, who is the personal representative of Her Majesty The Queen. It would not be appropriate to have a single Lieutenant Governor for the two Bailiwicks.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has made of the ethnic origin of girls sentenced to detention and training since April 2000. [147455]

  Mr. Boateng
  Eighty-nine girls were received into custody under detention and training orders in their first three months, April to June 2000. One was Asian, four were black, five were of mixed race, 76 were white and three were of other ethnic origin.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-harm have taken place among(a) females, (b) females under 21 and (c) females under 18 serving custodial sentences in each year since 1995, broken down by establishment in which the incidents occurred. [147469]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for self-harm incidents for all female prisoners held in establishments designated as prisons for women since 1994–95 are given in the table. They are given by financial year so as to include the most up to date figures available. Those for the period since March 2000 are being collated and should be available in May. I regret that these self-harm figures are not available for female prisoners by age.

  Previous projects include research into the institutional factors of self-harm at Bullwood Hall prison; the management and recording of suicidal behaviour at Styal prison; and the management of self-harm, characteristics of those who self-harm, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness at Holloway prison. Current projects include a study of women life sentence prisoners and suicidal behaviour at Highpoint prison. All generic studies of self-inflicted deaths include women prisoners.

  All research is evaluated so that it informs and contributes to the development of suicide and self-harm prevention policies and practices.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the
  207W
  factors underlying the recent increase in the number of women sentenced to imprisonment. [147457]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of women prisoners increased by 100 per cent. from 1993 to 1998, compared with a 45 per cent. increase in the number of men. The increase is due to more women going through the courts, and more women getting custodial sentences and for longer periods. In 1999, 70,800 women were proceeded against for indictable offences compared with 68,500 in 1998. Since 1997 the custody rate for women has increased by just over a quarter compared with a 9 per cent. increase for men. In the last five years, 50 per cent. of the rise is due to more women being convicted of drugs offences.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to remove 15 and 16-year-old girls from the prison system. [147456]

  Mr. Boateng
  In March 2000, 40 of the 130 girls sentenced and remanded to custody were held outside the Prison Service. Following the Government's changes to the sentencing, remand and placement arrangements last year this total has increased to 60. We aim to increase it further but as the total of girls in custody is rising we cannot set a date for removing 15 and 16-year-olds completely from Prison Service accommodation.

  Graffiti
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the restriction on the sale of spray paints to minors. [147593]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: I have received several representations of late from Members of Parliament and from members of the public calling for restrictions on the sale of spray paints to minors. There are, however, no plans to introduce such restrictions at present. I refer the hon. Member to the closing statement I gave to the Adjournment debate 'Graffiti and Vandalism' on 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 195.

  Appointments on probation—1 April to 15 December 20001,2

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Forces

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Avon and Somerset

  3

  3

  0

  0

  7

  6

  8

  8

  9

  9

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  2

  9

  0

  0

  2

  7

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  13

  3

  8

  2

  9

  3

  13

  3

  8

  Cheshire

  2

  4

  0

  0

  2

  4

  2

  6

  1

  4

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Cleveland

  3

  9

  3

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  6

  4

  5

  4

  0

  0

  10

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  8

  7

  7

  8

  9

  8

  10

  9

  10

  Dorset

  4

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  4

  7

  Durham

  0

  0

  5

  8

  0

  1

  5

  7

  4

  6

  Dyfed Powys

  4

  6

  0

  0

  4

  8

  0

  0

  4

  5

  Essex

  0

  12

  0

  8

  0

  10

  0

  16

  0

  12

  Gloucestershire

  5

  9

  0

  0

  4

  8

  5

  9

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  11

  16

  16

  30

  3

  6

  5

  10

  9

  14

  Gwent

  12

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  208W

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the planned police recruitment intakes in England and Wales for the remainder of 2000–01, broken down by force, differentiating recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund initiative and those who would otherwise be recruited; [146290]

  (2) if he will list the (a) planned and (b) actual police recruitment intakes in England and Wales in 2000–01 to date, broken down by force, differentiating recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund initiative and those who would otherwise have been recruited. [146289]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The only information collected centrally about force recruitment by intake is that required for the purposes of monitoring the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) and calculating CFF grant. Forces are not asked for details of all planned and actual recruits, only for the number of appointments on probation. For CFF purposes any officer appointed on transfer from the Royal Ulster Constabulary is also counted in this category. The figures provided by forces are the source of the information given in this answer.

  Individual force plans for particular recruitment intakes have changed frequently according to the success of the force in attracting and processing applications. The table sets out the actual recruitment, month by month, reported by each force for the period 1 April to 15 December 2000. This was the cut-off date for the most recent payment of CFF grant. The table shows separately the number of officers deemed to be CFF recruits and other appointments on probation. The number of recruits deemed to be CFF officers is calculated as a proportion of the force's projected total appointments on probation. If the total of these appointments for the year varies from a force's projections, the number of recruits deemed to be CFF officers may also change.

  In view of the frequent changes to force plans for the number of recruits on each intake, it is difficult to offer a meaningful force by force projection for each intake for the remainder of 2000–01. However, returns from forces suggest that by 31 March 2000 a total of 7,250 appointments on probation will have been made in the financial year 2000–01. Of these 2,750 will be deemed to be CFF recruits.
  209W

  Appointments on probation—1 April to 15 December 20001,2

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Forces

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Hampshire

  2

  16

  1

  15

  2

  19

  1

  16

  2

  15

  Hertfordshire

  0

  12

  0

  16

  0

  13

  0

  9

  0

  11

  Humberside

  8

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  5

  0

  7

  0

  Kent

  7

  13

  7

  11

  10

  18

  10

  17

  9

  15

  Lancashire

  8

  8

  7

  7

  8

  8

  7

  7

  8

  9

  Leicestershire

  7

  10

  0

  0

  6

  10

  0

  0

  7

  10

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  4

  8

  4

  8

  8

  16

  5

  9

  Merseyside

  14

  6

  14

  6

  0

  0

  8

  3

  11

  4

  Metropolitan

  42

  57

  42

  57

  41

  55

  36

  49

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  6

  4

  6

  3

  4

  2

  0

  0

  8

  4

  North Wales

  4

  8

  2

  4

  4

  8

  0

  0

  8

  13

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  11

  3

  9

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  9

  8

  8

  6

  3

  3

  6

  5

  Northumbria

  4

  10

  6

  12

  6

  12

  8

  17

  9

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  6

  5

  8

  4

  7

  5

  7

  5

  7

  South Wales

  4

  11

  4

  14

  4

  14

  5

  18

  8

  25

  South Yorkshire

  5

  7

  5

  7

  11

  13

  5

  7

  11

  13

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  8

  2

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  7

  22

  5

  15

  4

  14

  6

  20

  4

  13

  Sussex

  2

  8

  2

  8

  4

  11

  5

  16

  6

  18

  Thames Valley

  4

  14

  5

  18

  4

  18

  6

  26

  5

  22

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  10

  0

  0

  4

  8

  West Mercia

  0

  0

  11

  7

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  14

  27

  13

  25

  24

  45

  24

  46

  24

  45

  West Yorkshire

  8

  7

  7

  6

  8

  7

  9

  9

  11

  11

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  4

  5

  0

  0

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Forces

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  6

  2

  7

  2

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  2

  9

  2

  9

  3

  13

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  2

  5

  4

  9

  0

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  10

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  3

  9

  3

  9

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  1

  7

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  9

  7

  8

  6

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  0

  9

  9

  8

  10

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  0

  8

  12

  0

  0

  6

  8

  Durham

  0

  0

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  6

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  0

  3

  4

  4

  3

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  22

  0

  22

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  4

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  12

  23

  12

  23

  21

  39

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  2

  22

  1

  17

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  4

  12

  Kent

  0

  0

  10

  19

  11

  19

  12

  20

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  8

  9

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Leicestershire

  5

  9

  0

  0

  5

  7

  2

  4

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  5

  9

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  14

  5

  14

  6

  0

  0

  Metropolitan

  41

  55

  52

  70

  57

  77

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  6

  3

  1

  8

  0

  0

  North Wales

  0

  0

  8

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  3

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  13

  0

  6

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  7

  16

  7

  14

  8

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  4

  7

  3

  6

  10

  18

  South Wales

  0

  0

  7

  23

  7

  21

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  4

  5

  11

  13

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  7

  1

  7

  2

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  9

  5

  0

  0

  11

  6

  Surrey

  7

  20

  8

  25

  0

  0

  4

  15

  210W 211W

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Forces

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Deemed CFF

  Others

  Sussex

  0

  0

  5

  15

  7

  21

  7

  21

  Thames Valley

  0

  0

  5

  19

  3

  12

  4

  14

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  4

  8

  4

  8

  4

  9

  West Mercia

  0

  0

  9

  5

  6

  3

  9

  6

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  24

  45

  24

  46

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  8

  8

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Based on force returns for CFF purposes

  2 Force returns cover appointments on probation, except that any officer transferring to a force in England and Wales from the RUC would also be counted among 'others'

TREASURY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr.Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about progress on implementing the recommendations made by KPMG in December 1999 on the adequacy of the risk management systems and processes of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [148480]

  Mr.Timms
  The Government, in their response to the Trade and Industry Committee's report on the future of ECGD, noted that it intended to commission a follow-up, independent report to assess progress in addressing the recommendations made by KPMG in 1999 [Cm 4792]. I announced the Terms of Reference for this follow-up review to the House on 30 November 2000. KPMG have been re-engaged for this review which is to be undertaken in two stages. The first stage is now complete and I have placed a copy of KPMG's report in the Library of the House. KPMG's conclusions were as follows:"A significant volume of work has been undertaken in addressing the recommendations set out in the original KPMG report. Most of the recommendations have been addressed, although there are still some areas outstanding. However, in most cases, the implementation of the proposals made to address the recommendations is still in course.
  As a result, the majority of steps taken to address the recommendations could only be reviewed through studying the so called Product Papers relating to each area of the Action Plan, and the practical effectiveness could not be reviewed. Many of the findings of this report have, therefore, stated a requirement for further review in Phase 2 of the review. In many cases, it will be necessary for ECGD to revise the processes proposed by the Action Plan Products to fit the PMS3 framework and this is likely to involve a considerable volume of work.
  Therefore, as regards Section 5 of the original KPMG report, we believe that there is a need for ECGD to formally monitor the implementation of the Product Papers and their associated recommendations, in order to maintain the momentum required to ensure full implementation in advance of Phase 2 of the review.
  As regards Section 4 of the original report and progress towards capitalisation, there was found to be a high degree of commitment within ECGD to the development of the PMS3 framework. There has been considerable progress in the high level design of the constituent elements of a capitalisation framework comparable to best practice in the commercial sector. However, in most cases, the detailed design of the various elements is still in course and was not therefore ready for review.
  The high level review of the elements in place revealed that significant progress has been made towards the development of the PMS3 framework, but that there is also a great deal more work to be completed for ECGD to successfully meet the April 2001 implementation date. This is particularly the case regarding
  212W
  the development of the operational framework within which PMS3 will work. It is recommended that fulfilment of the criteria set out in Annex B of this report should be reviewed in Phase 2 to more fully assess the potential effectiveness of the PMS3 framework.
  Overall, therefore, whilst we believe that significant progress has been made in addressing the recommendations, it is clear that there is still a considerable amount of implementation work to be completed before the operating environment will be appropriate for the delegation of full operational autonomy to ECGD and the adoption of the purely strategic relationship proposed in Product E4 of the Action Plan".

  Special Shares
  Mr.Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the special shares he holds in former nationalised companies; what value is placed on those shares based on resource accounting procedures; and what market value is attached to those shares. [147251]

  Mr.Andrew Smith
  HM Treasury does not hold special shares in any former nationalised companies.

  For figures on the numbers of special shares held by the Government, I refer to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 764W. Since 21 February, the Government have redeemed their special share in both PowerGen plc and National Power plc and have obtained a special share in Lattice plc following the restructuring of British Gas plc.

  Special shares are not marketable and are not assigned a value within departmental resource based accounts.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok he estimates will be eligible to claim the children's tax credit. [148119]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate of the number of families in the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok who will be eligible to claim the children's tax credit (CTC) is unavailable, but an estimate of the number of families in Scotland who will be eligible to claim CTC is 400,000.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average annual cost to public funds is in terms of benefits payments and lost revenue of each unemployed person; and how this varies between employment sectors. [147721]
  213W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The extent to which unemployment affects Government revenues and spending depends on a number of assumptions, in particular the extent to which unemployment reflects permanent changes in output growth. Treasury research on this is included in "Fiscal policy: public finances and the cycle" (March 1999). As a result of falling levels of unemployment, social security expenditure to the unemployed is forecast to be £4 billion lower, in real terms, in 2000–01 than in 1996–97. DSS ready reckoners estimate that an increase of 100,000 in claimant unemployed would lead to an increase in expenditure of around £500–£550 million a year. Public revenue and spending effects of unemployment in different employment sectors are not available.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many employees of HM Customs and Excise(a) are predominantly involved in tackling importation of illegal drugs and (b) have some responsibility for tackling importation of illegal drugs and how many employees there are in total; [146301]

  (2)what proportion of the resources deployed by HM Custonms and Excise are involved in dealing with the importation of illegal drugs. [146302]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]: This information for resources deployed to the Protection of Society is contained within HM Customs & Excise's Annual Report 2000, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The majority of these staff will be deployed on anti-drugs work.

  Insurance Regulation
  Mr.Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to investigate the regulatory performance of his Department and its predecessors in respect of insurance providers and appointed actuaries on the issue of(a) guaranteed annuity policies, (b) with profits funds and (c) policyholders' reasonable expectations in the period leading up to 1 January 1999. [145695]

  Mr.Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will conduct an inquiry into his Department's regulation of Equitable Life during 1997 and 1998. [146685]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 and 22 January 2001]: The Financial Services Authority is preparing a report on the events leading to the closure of Equitable Life to new business. As the FSA said on 22 December the report will set out the background and events leading up to the FSA assuming responsibility for prudential insurance regulation. The report is likely to take some months and it will be published.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2000,Official Report, column 462W, if he will make it his policy to provide compensation to Equitable Life policy holders who acted on the guidance issued by his Department. [145570]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: As I announced in the Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on 19 December 2000, Official Report, column 56WH, compensation for the customers of financial services firms is available if a firm becomes insolvent. As I also reported in that debate, the FSA said
  214W
  when the firm closed to new business that the Equitable Life was not insolvent. In the case of insolvent insurance firms, the relevant compensation scheme is that provided for under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, when implemented, will bring these arrangements into the single Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been further developments on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [148479]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Tax Law Rewrite project is continuing to make good progress. The rewritten Capital Allowances Bill was introduced in this House earlier this month and the Inland Revenue today publish the project's eleventh Exposure Draft, containing draft clauses rewriting a second group of the employment income provisions. Copies of the Exposure Draft are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all NICE appraisal determinations on health technologies are submitted to him for final approval prior to their dissemination to the NHS. [146388]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issues its appraisal guidance directly to the National Health Service and is solely responsible for the content of the appraisal determination on which it is based. In accordance with its directions, the dissemination of the final guidance is subject to the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Department, in common with other consultees, has the opportunity to comment on the content of the draft guidance before the final guidance is drawn up by NICE.

  Prescription Drug Prices
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of change in the price of drugs prescribed genetically by the NHS was during 2000; if he will list the 10 drugs which have shown the highest rate of increase and what that rate has been in each case. [146453]

  Mr. Denham
  The prices paid by the National Health Service for the main medicines prescribed and available generically fell by around 30 per cent. overall in 2000, with most of the falls occurring in anticipation of and in response to the introduction of our maximum price scheme for generics in July 2000. This represents an estimated saving to the National Health Service in 2000 of some £170–£180 million compared to prices in January 2000.

  The table lists the 10 presentations of the main medicines prescribed and available generically which recorded the highest price increases in 2000. The cost of the increases is taken into account in the estimated savings figure for 2000 and had a marginal effect on it.
  215W

  Percentage

  Name of presentation

  Increase in price

  Digoxin—Tab 62.5mcg (28-pack)

  73

  Loperamide HCl—Cap 2mg (30-pack)

  46

  Aspirin—Tab E/300mg (100-pack)

  40

  Co-Codamol Eff—Tab 8mg/500mg (100-pack)

  39

  Digoxin—Tab 125mcg (28-pack)

  29

  Digoxin—Tab 250mcg (28-pack)

  29

  Paracetamol—Tab 500mg (100-pack)

  22

  Lorazepam—Tab 2.5mg (100-pack)

  19

  Clomipramine HCl—Cap 10mg (28-pack)

  15

  Dothiepin HCI Cap 25 mg (28-pack)

  13

  Notes:

  The main medicines prescribed and available genetically, on which the price index is based and from which the data on increases is taken, are defined as the generic preparations subject to the Government price control measures introduced in July 2000 and any other preparations in the top 200 generic medicines in terms of net ingredient cost in the first six months of 2000, the latest period for which comprehensive information is available. Together they represent around 90 per cent. of total net ingredient cost of medicines prescribed and available generically. The price index is based on the average unit Drug Tariff price of each preparation weighted according to quantities (includes estimates for months for which actual data are not yet available) dispensed in 2000–01.

  Internet Adoption
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory provisions which apply to(a) the adoption of children through the internet and (b) adoption agencies' use of the internet. [146602]

  Mr. Hutton
  Only councils and approved voluntary adoption agencies may advertise (on the internet and elsewhere) children for the purposes of adoption. Anyone else who does this is committing an offence under section 58(1) of the Adoption Act 1976.

  Section 58(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 provides that it is unlawful for any advertisement to be published indicating:

  (a) that the parent or guardian of a child desires to cause a child to be adopted;

  (b) that a person desires to adopt a child; or

  (c) that any person (not being a local authority or voluntary adoption society approved by the Secretary of State) is willing to make arrangements for the adoption of a child.

  Making arrangements for the adoption of a child is defined in section 72(3) of the Adoption Act 1976 as amended by section 13 of Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999.

  Section 58(2) provides that any person who causes to be published or knowingly publishes an advertisement in contravention of section 58(1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. The law applies equally to the internet as it does to any other medium.

  I wrote to the United Kingdom Internet Service Providers Association on 19 January, informing them that if they become aware of any material on one of their Internet Service Providers advertising children for adoption that is not run by a local authority or approved adoption agency, they must remove it. If they failed to do so then they will be committing an offence and may face prosecution.
  216W

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking in response to the views of the beta interferon appeal panel on selecting patients for treatment with beta interferon. [147036]

  Mr. Denham
  The panel was set up to examine specific procedural points relating to the determination of the Appraisal Committee on beta interferon. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) asked the Appraisal Committee to reconsider the matters in the light of the appeal panel's decision.

  NICE has now extended the timescale for its appraisal of both beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to enable further research to be undertaken on their cost effectiveness. NICE will review the outcome of the new modelling in the summer and unless there are further appeals would expect to issue its guidance by this November.

  Haemophilia
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide genetically engineered recombinant treatment products in place of blood products for people with haemophilia in the United Kingdom. [147042]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already instructed National Health Service trusts to provide recombinant clotting factors to new haemophilia patients and those under age 16. We have recently met representatives from the Haemophilia Society, the United Kingdom Haemophilia Doctors Association and the Royal College of Nursing Haemophilia Nurses Association to discuss the case for extending this provision to all haemophilia patients in England, and are giving careful consideration to the points they made.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold a public inquiry into the infection of people with haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis through contaminated blood products; and if he will make a statement. [147041]

  Mr. Denham
  The technology to make blood products free from HIV and hepatitis C in sufficient quantities to treat all haemophilia patients in the United Kingdom was not available until the mid 1980s. Once it was, the National Health Service introduced it. All this information is in the public domain and we do not believe that anyone's interest would be best served by a public inquiry.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to enable adults with haemophilia to be offered treatment with genetically engineered recombinant and to establish a no-fault compensation scheme for people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis. [147265]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already instructed National Health Service trusts to provide recombinant clotting factors to new haemophilia patients and those under age 16. We have recently met representatives from the Haemophilia Society, the United Kingdom Haemophilia Doctors Association and the Haemophilia Nurses
  217W
  Association to discuss the case for extending this provision to all haemophilia patients in England, and are giving careful consideration to the points they made.

  We have reviewed the previous Government's decision not to offer financial assistance to haemophilia patients infected with hepatitis C through blood products. We concluded that an exception could not be made to the general rule that compensation or financial help is only given when the NHS, or individuals working in it, have been at fault.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relative benefits to dental health of(a) calcium fluoride and (b) sodium fluoride. [147258]

  Mr. Denham
  The use of sodium salts to deliver fluoride to benefit dental health is more appropriate than the use of calcium salts.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the report into the safety and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water carried out by the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and what plans he has to establish a public inquiry into the issue. [147259]

  Mr. Denham
  We accept the findings of the York report that more high-quality research is required and have asked the Medical Research Council to consider how the research base may be strengthened. We do not consider that a public inquiry would be appropriate.

  Hospital Cleanliness
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals in Cornwall and Devon which failed to meet basic cleanliness standards according to the recent survey by NHS Estates. [147249]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 508W.

  Nurses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agency nurses were employed in the NHS in December 2000; and what the total cost of that employment was. [147242]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the number of agency nurses is not collected centrally. Information on the annual costs of employing agency nurses is collected centrally after the end of each financial year. Information on the cost of employing agency nurses during individual months of the year is not collected centrally.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to carry out a value for money and operational effectiveness audit of the NHS computer systems purchased through the South West regional procurement following full implementation, before employing this procurement methodology elsewhere. [147139]
  218W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The South West procurement exercise is a pilot from which lessons will be learned and applied elsewhere in the country to help implement acute EPR. Once the systems and services have been implemented, a post-implementation review will be carried out by each local community taking part and will be published, as required by the conditions of the business case approval.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what foods which have gone past their sell by date are routinely reprocessed by the food industry and sold to the public in another form; and if he will make a statement. [147382]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Whether or not the date mark on a food has expired, and whether or not a food has been reprocessed, it is an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990 to sell, or possess for sale, food that does not comply with food safety requirements. These are that food, not only for retail sale but throughout the food chain, must not have been rendered injurious to health, be unfit, or be so contaminated that it would be unreasonable to expect it to be eaten. The Act also makes it an offence to render food injurious to health, to sell to the purchaser's prejudice food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded, or to describe or present food falsely or misleadingly.

  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of the education and training of a qualified orthopaedic surgeon is. [147268]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  In order to qualify as an orthopaedic surgeon, a doctor would have to complete a medical degree, one year of general clinical training, a minimum of two years as a senior house officer and six years as a specialist registrar.

  The costs to the National Health Service and Higher Education Funding Council in England of a five year undergraduate medical course plus a year of general clinical training are in the region of £160,000 to £200,000. The health service makes a significant investment in postgraduate medical education. Doctors in postgraduate training follow an apprenticeship model where their training is inextricably bound up with the service they provide. Even within specialties the length and type of training will vary according to the particular career path an individual chooses and their rate of progress. For these reasons it is not possible to put a meaningful figure to the cost of training individuals to completion of specialist training.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 41–42W, if he will list the amendments to directives and proposed future directives the Food Standards Agency is seeking to allow food products to

  219W
  carry consumer information about disease risk exposure reduction; and if he will make a statement on the progress so far made in achieving these objectives. [147745]

  Ms Stuart
  The Food Standards Agency has made specific representations to the European Commission arguing for establishment of an effective and practical system for the verification and approval of health claims at European Union level. It has made the case for allowing valid disease risk reduction claims as an integral part of these arrangements. These initiatives form part of the Food Standards Agency's wide-reaching food labelling action plan to improve the quality and clarity of information available to consumers.

  I understand the Commission is now reviewing this area of legislation with a view to making proposals later this year.

  A summary of the changes being pursued has been published by the FSA in its action plan on food labelling, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Children (Medicines)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to establish a centrally- held record of suspected adverse reactions among children to medicines. [147772]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The Medicines Control Agency and its independent scientific expert advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, have responsibility for monitoring the safety of medicines in the United Kingdom.

  One of the key data sources used in monitoring is the yellow card scheme. This scheme receives spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions, including those in children, from doctors, dentists, coroners and pharmacists. All reports are entered on the adverse drug reactions on line information tracking database maintained by the MCA.

  MRSA
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce infection by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in NHS hospitals. [147873]

  Mr. Denham
  The recently published NHS Plan implementation programme makes it very clear that, as a core requirement, National Health Service organisations must have effective systems in place to prevent and control hospital acquired infection (HAI), including methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

  New evidence-based multi-professional guidelines commissioned by the Department for the prevention of HAI, including multi-drug resistant organisms, were published in January 2001 as a supplement to the Journal of Hospital Infection.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are taken to test-screen possible carriers of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in NHS hospitals. [147836]
  220W
  Mr. Denham
  There are different patterns of MRSA incidence throughout the country. Expert opinion is that it is not desirable or practical to screen all patients for MRSA but this is a matter for local determination. Mandatory surveillance of blood stream infections, including those caused by MRSA, is to be introduced from April 2001. This will enable National Health Service trusts more effectively to target interventions at patients most at risk.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection in NHS hospitals. [147842]

  Mr. Denham
  Aggregate data on numbers of incidents of methicillin resistant "Staphylococcus aureus" (MRSA) voluntarily submitted by trusts for specialist microbiological tests since 1996 are given in the tables. These data are routinely available on a regional basis only. Data on "Staphylococcus aureus" bacteraemias (blood infections) showing the proportion resistant to methicillin in England and Wales are published quarterly by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the Communicable Disease Report, copies of which are available in the Library. More comprehensive information about bacteraemias, including MRSA, will be collected from all acute trusts from 1 April 2001 and data will be published from 1 April 2002.

  Incidents of MRSA 1996–2000

  Incidents of MRSA

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  237

  297

  223

  North Thames

  539

  544

  289

  North West

  176

  259

  215

  Northern and Yorkshire

  150

  224

  202

  South and West

  206

  254

  101

  South Thames

  421

  385

  220

  Trent

  99

  123

  109

  West Midlands

  121

  102

  69

  Wales

  158

  176

  169

  Total

  2,107

  2,364

  1,597

  Incidents of MRSA

  1999

  2000

  Eastern

  80

  60

  London

  290

  170

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  70

  North West

  180

  90

  South East

  170

  100

  South West

  40

  10

  Trent

  100

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  50

  Wales

  130

  40

  Total

  1,190

  620

  Notes:

  1.For 1996 and the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new Regional Office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years.

  2.An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  3.The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000).

  4.These revised criteria have led to a fall in the number of incidents of MRSA that were reported to the PHLS and cannot be used as a reliable estimate of the total number of cases of MRSA.
  221W

  London Hospitals
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has given to(a) Camden and Islington NHS Trust, (b) The Royal Free Hospital and (c) The Whittington Hospital since May 1997. [147878]

  Total revenue income

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust

  100,547

  106,089

  114,939

  The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  178,839

  216,825

  246,209

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  71,247

  75,007

  81,485

  Source:

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust, The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust and Whittington Hospital NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–2000.

  Lymington Community Hospital
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the conclusions he has drawn regarding the future of Lymington Community Hospital. [146156]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]An announcement will be made in due course.

  Body Parts (Regulation)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has published to control and regulate the sale of(a) human organs and (b) other body parts to third parties, (i) inside and (ii) outside the NHS. [148097]

  Mr. Denham
  A letter from the Department to directors of paediatric cardiothoracic units in 1996 stated that the supply of surgical tissues for research or commercial purposes should meet the criteria of consent, safety and cost recovery.

  Directions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (paragraph 9.9) restrict charges made by blood transfusion centres for blood and blood derivatives to reasonable handling charges, with no charge to be made for the blood or derivatives.

  The Human Organ Transplants Act (1989) prohibits commercial dealing in human organs. "Organ" is defined in the Act as "any part of a human body consisting of a structured arrangement of tissues which, if wholly removed, cannot be replicated by the body".

  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) says that "no money or other benefit may be given or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless authorised by directions."

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals have sold(a) thymus glands and (b) other body tissues to third parties, (i) inside and (ii) outside the NHS in each of the last three years; and how much money is involved. [148096]

  Mr. Denham
  As long as consent is properly obtained and ethical standards adhered to, it is appropriate for the National Health Service to supply human tissues to pharmaceutical companies for the development of new
  222W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]The figures given in the table are for total revenue income of the trusts. It should be noted that this includes income other than that received from the Department (via health authorities and primary care groups) by means of contracts.

  vaccines and medicines. As this involves a cost to the NHS, which would otherwise have to be met by funds provided for patient care, it is legitimate for these costs to be recovered from the companies concerned.

  Information is not held about the supply of thymus glands and other body tissues for such purposes.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what press releases were issued, speeches and other public statements supporting animal testing for medical research purposes were made by him and his Ministers in the year to 18 January. [147409]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the year from 19 January 2000 to 18 January 2001, written answers were given by Department of Health Ministers to six parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on this and related subjects. These answers were given on 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 760W; on 5 April 2000, Official Report, column 509W; on 3 May 2000, Official Report, column 169W; on 15 May 2000, Official Report, column 19W; on 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 683W; and on 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 254W.

  In the first of these answers I made clear that we are concerned to ensure that research in animals is undertaken only when necessary to fulfil statutory obligations. In the last of these answers I said that my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath had explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow at a meeting on 25 July 2000 that we fully support the need to raise public awareness of the benefits of animal testing.

PRIME MINISTER

  Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to announce the conclusion of the Quinquennial Review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [148394]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that the Report of the Quinquennial Review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is published today. Copies are being placed in the Libraries.
  223W
  The Report recommends that the Committee should continue in its present form for the time being. It notes that there may not always be a need for the Committee to be continuously involved in a full-time inquiry but that in the future less active periods of monitoring may be called for. It recommends that the Committee should react flexibly to requirements and developments in the field of standards in public life. I am grateful to Lord Neill and his Committee for the work they have done in this area. I agree with the Report, which concludes that the Committee has itself become a part of the fabric of public life.

  Peter Mandelson
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the exchanges between him and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), concerning the latter's resignation as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. [148126]

  The Prime Minister
  There were none.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date(a) discussions first took place between a Minister and the Hinduja brothers, (b) correspondence was sent by a minister and (c) correspondence was received by a minister concerning the possible sponsoring of the Faith Zone in the Millennium Dome by the Hinduja Brothers; and if he will make a statement. [147176]

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January 2001, c. 70W]: Owing to an administrative error the answer printed in Hansard gives the same answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) (UIN 147176) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) (UIN 147718). The answer given only related to the question from the hon. Member for Aylesbury. My office informed the hon. Member for Lewes of the error and a substantive reply to his question is given below.

  It was the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), as the operator of the Dome, to negotiate and secure sponsorship for the Dome.

  I understand from NMEC, that the Hinduja Foundation first approached NMEC in February 1997 about the possibility of incorporating the "Concordia Project" into the Dome. This was to be an interactive visitor education centre focusing on the world's different cultures.

  On 24 February 1998, together with several other Ministers, I launched the public appeal for sponsorship at a televised public event at which the Hinduja Foundation, among many other companies and organisations, were present. At the launch they reiterated their desire to be involved in the Millennium project.

  They then wrote to me on 25 February 1998 and the Minister without Portfolio on 26 February 1998. Further negotiations were conducted by NMEC.

  On 3 June 1999 NMEC announced that the Faith Zone would receive £4 million in sponsorship—£2 million from the Laing Family Trusts (Christian charitable foundations); £1 million from the Hinduja Foundation and £1 million from other Christian trusts including the Jerusalem trust.
  224W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister when, and by whom, he was first informed of the possibility that the Hindujas might provide sponsorship for the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [148095]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I have given today to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will invite the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate the activities of the Hinduja brothers under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 in relation to their passport applications; and if he will make a statement. [148098]

  The Prime Minister
  No. I have set up an inquiry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what gifts have been received since 2 May 1997 from the Hindujas by(a) Ministers and (b) other persons representing the Government. [148067]

  The Prime Minister
  The rules on the acceptance of gifts by Ministers and civil servants are set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Departmental Handbooks". Details of gifts received by Ministers and civil servants are not held centrally.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister which officials in his office have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148075]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 2 May 1997 he has met(a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja; and if he will make a statement. [148069]

  The Prime Minister
  It is public knowledge that I have met members of the Hinduja family. Subject to that it is not the normal practice of Government to release details of meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 2 May 1997 he has discussed matters relating to the Hinduja brothers with(a) the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), (b) the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), (c) the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), (d) the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), (e) other Ministers. [148068]

  The Prime Minister
  A central record is not maintained of each and every conversation that I have with Ministerial colleagues.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister when, and by whom, he was first informed of the citizenship applications submitted by(a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja on 5 March 1997 and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja on 20 October 1998; and if he will make a statement. [148092]

  The Prime Minister
  Applications for citizenship are a matter for the Home Office.
  225W

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Auld Report
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to announce the results of Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal justice system. [147691]

  Jane Kennedy
  Lord Justice Auld is currently drafting his final report. It will be published once it is available.

  Magistrates Courts Service (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what funding has been provided for the Northamptonshire magistrates courts service for each year from 1990. [147704]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides separate grants for revenue and capital (buildings and IT) to local authorities for magistrates courts costs. Grant is paid at 80 per cent. of expenditure/costs of scheme or item, with the remaining 20 per cent. met by local authorities.

  The total funding provided to Northamptonshire magistrates courts committee was:

  Year

  £million

  1992–93

  3.74

  1993–94

  3.41

  1994–95

  3.72

  1995–96

  3.61

  1996–97

  3.66

  1997–98

  3.55

  1998–99

  3.75

  1999–2000

  4.03

  2000–01

  13.55

  1 The 2000–01 figure is an estimate, as revenue grant costs will not be certain until the end of this financial year

  The Lord Chancellor's Department became responsible for magistrates courts from 1 April 1992. Funding figures prior to this are unavailable.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  TV Licensing
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representations(a) his Department and (b) TV Licensing have received from (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public on the conduct of TV Licensing. [147609]

  Janet Anderson
  The Department does not record the subject matter of correspondence received in such a way as to enable the information requested to be provided in full. However, during the calendar year 2000 the Department received over 80 representations from hon. Members about correspondence received from TV Licensing or the activities of that organisation. A number of representations were also received from members of the public on these subjects.

  TV Licensing carries out the administration of the television licensing system as an agent for the BBC. According to information provided by the BBC, during
  226W
  the calendar year 2000 TV Licensing received 45,095 representations. Separate figures for Members of Parliament are not readily available.

  National Waterways Museum
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support his Department has given to the National Waterways Museum in the years(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [147620]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department does not provide core funding for the National Waterways Museum which is governed by the Waterways Trust, an independent charitable trust. However, the Museum has received financial support from organisations directly and indirectly sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  From the Designated Museums Challenge Fund, the Museum received £53,080 in 1999–2000, and £116,608 in 2000–01. From the South West Museums Council, which is funded by Re:Source: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, the Museum received grants totalling £2,424 in 1998–99, and £2,571 in 1999–2000. The Museum was also awarded a grant of £502 in 1999–2000, and has been offered a grant of £5,000 in 2000–01, from the PRISM (Preservation of Scientific and Industrial Material) Fund administered by the Science Museum on behalf of Re:Source.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on farm incomes. [148535]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Revised estimates of farm income during 2000 were published this morning. These confirm the significant reduction forecast last November, and indicate a fall of 25 per cent.

  This fall is largely due to pressure on prices for agricultural outputs caused by a further rise in sterling against the euro, as compared to 1999.

  The Government remain committed to providing a framework within which the industry may react to the challenges presented by the current situation.

  Detailed estimates of the income, output and productivity of agriculture in the United Kingdom in 2000 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hazard Analysis
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the impact of hazard analysis critical control points on official control of meat inspection. [146981]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  Representations on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the future control of meat inspection have been received from UNISON and hon. Members on behalf of constituents. I am advised that UNISON and the Association of Meat Inspectors (AMI) have also been holding discussions on this issue with the

  227W
  Food Standards Agency (FSA). The concerns expressed relate to an unfounded view that the FSA would countenance a change to the present system of meat inspection which did not fully protect the public.

  A European Commission working document, made available by the FSA earlier this month to a wide range of interests, including UNISON and the AMI, sets out some initial ideas on what might form the main elements of a future risk-based meat inspection system. Among other things, the document discusses the possibility that operators who demonstrate a high degree of commitment to good hygiene practice including consistently good microbiological test results, who train their own staff to the same level as official inspectors and who wish to take on the responsibility, might be permitted to carry out on-line meat inspection subject to official scrutiny and enforcement, as long as those high standards are maintained. Other, non-European Union, countries have already adopted or are piloting such an approach because of perceived consumer benefits.

  Any legislative proposals that flow from the Commission's working document would be subject to formal public consultation in the UK, negotiations with other member states, and both EU and UK Parliamentary scrutiny, before any changes could be implemented.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the cost of introducing hazard analysis critical control point. [146982]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised that the Food Standards Agency is in the process of gathering information on the cost implications of implementing the changes to European Union food safety legislation proposed by the European Commission last July. This includes information on the likely costs of introducing in full the hazard analysis and critical control point food safety management system. The agency invited comments on the likely costs of meeting the new legal requirements in the initial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) which formed part of its public consultation on the Commission's proposals. An updated RIA will be made available when the European Scrutiny Committee debates the proposals.

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings were registered as at 1 January; and of that number how many were classified as smallholdings. [146641]

  Ms Quin
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 January 2001, c 515W]: I regret an error has been discovered in the numbers previously provided.

  The correct number of agricultural holdings in England registered at 1 January 2001 is:

  Main holdings—151,121

  Minor holdings—31,012.

  It should also be noted that there has been an increase of 4,800 holdings on the register since June 2000 largely as a result of the register improvement exercise currently taking place, and the total figures are subject to change.
  228W
  Notes:

  A holding is classified as minor if all the following criteria are true:

  a. the total area is less than six hectares

  b. there is no regular whole-time farmer or worker

  c. the estimated annual labour requirement is less than 100 days (of eight hours' productive work by an adult worker under average conditions)

  d. the glasshouse area is less than 100 square metres

  e. the occupier does not farm another holding.

  If any of these conditions is not satisfied, the holding is categorised as "main".

  Fishmeal
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed EU-wide ban on fishmeal in animal feed on Britain's livestock farmers. [146407]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: I have asked my officials to consult the UK agriculture industry on the impact of the introduction of the new EU-wide feed controls, including the ban on fishmeal. A consultation paper including a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment has been sent to representative organisations for comments by 2 February. It is also available on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk and in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [144076]

  Mr. Wills
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Early Years Education (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his estimate is of the proportion of three-year-olds in Somerset who will have a free early years place by(a) spring 2001, (b) spring 2002 and (c) spring 2003; and if he will make a statement. [144606]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: By September 2004, there will be a free early education place in Somerset for every three-year-old whose parents want one.

  To move towards this achievement, the Government have allocated to Somerset funding for 1,704, 2,262 and 2,786 places for the three financial years to 2004 (allocations for the last two years are indicative). The LEA is already funding further places in the maintained sector.

  Our experience tells us that some parents do not take up places as soon as their children are three and do not always want a full-time place. Building that knowledge into our assumptions, over the three financial years

  229W
  in question there will be free places for 47 per cent., 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of three-year-olds in Somerset. These figures are averages based on the number of places available for the year as a whole. Local education authorities have been asked to increase places on a term by term basis to build up to universal provision, therefore the figures in the spring term are likely to be higher than the annual average.

  In 1997, about 8.5 per cent. of Somerset's three-year-olds had places in local education authority maintained nurseries.

  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part time, early education place.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146929]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined are details of the effect on the Slough constituency and Slough LEA of a range of the Department's policies.

  Sure Start

  There is a Sure Start programme centred in the Britwell and Northborough area of Slough. There is a strong emphasis on parental involvement with equal representation on the partnership board. The programme addresses the need to reshape existing services as well as offering a wide range of new activities including support to teenage parents and a new Community Parents project to promote and enable positive health and parenting skills through local community involvement.

  The programme has been granted funding of £1,643,508 until March 2003.

  Education Action Zones

  There is a large EAZ in Slough: 'Heart of Slough' Education Action Zone. EAZ grant payments to Slough EAZ comprise:
  contributions.

  £

  1999–2000

  169,000

  2000–01

  1627,000

  2001–02

  750,000

  1 i.e.the zone forecast to need this amount this FY.

  2 This figure assumes the EAZ raises &250,000 of private business contributions.

  Beacon Schools

  The LEA has one Beacon school—Priory School (awarded Beacon status in September 1998).

  Specialist Schools

  There is one Specialist School in Slough—Herschel Technology College. The additional funding made available to Herschel (because of its Specialist School status) since 1997 comprises:

  £

  1997–98

  73,370

  1998–99

  74,910

  1999–2000

  78,500

  230W

  £

  2000–01

  87,680

  2001–02

  188,560

  1 Estimate-calculated from pupil numbers each year. This figure assumes same pupil numbers as 2000–01.

  Class sizes

  Class sizes—Slough LEA

  £

  Revenue

  Capital

  1998–99

  88,000

  0

  1999–2000

  301,000

  113,000

  2000–01

  322,721

  676,000

  The September 2000 figure shows that there are now only 95 (2.7 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant class sizes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 713 (19.8 per cent.).

  Key Stage 2 results

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above in Key Stage 2 tests in Slough LEA:

  English

  Maths

  Science

  2000

  74

  70

  84

  1999

  68

  63

  72

  1998

  65

  53

  63

  GCSE/GNVQ results

  Percentage 5 or more A*-C

  Percentage no passes

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Slough

  42.9

  48.1

  51.3

  3.5

  3.3

  4.2

  England

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  6.6

  6.0

  5.6

  Funding

  Capital (excluding NDS)

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  ACG

  375

  246

  180

  74

  SCA

  0

  70

  50

  45

  VA Grant

  407

  118

  80

  60

  Seed

  —

  109

  0

  0

  Capital Formula

  0

  796

  0

  0

  NGfL

  0

  362

  284

  176

  Science Labs

  105

  105

  0

  0

  SSLUs

  25

  29

  0

  0

  Access

  116

  0

  0

  0

  Security

  0

  39

  38

  27

  Outside toilets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Energy

  0

  0

  0

  20

  AMP assistance

  0

  0

  17

  0

  New Deal for Schools

  £

  (As Berkshire)

  NDS 1 (1997–98)

  761,000

  NDS 2 (1998–99)

  385,000

  NDS 3 (1999–2000)

  644,000

  NDS 4 (2000–01)

  1,622,000

  231W
  School projects are described in the following table.

  £

  Name of school

  Project

  Allocation

  NDS 1

  James Elliman Middle, Arbor Vale Special, Our Lady of Peace RC First, Slough and Eton CE Secondary, Montem Infants, Wexham Secondary, Baylis Court Nursery, Godolphin Infants, Littledown School

  Large package for urgent Health and Safety works

  1761,000

  NDS 2

  Godolphin Infants

  Heating improvements

  37,254

  Lea Infants

  Heating improvements

  18,576

  Lea Middle

  Heating improvements

  104,975

  Montem Middle

  Heating improvements

  18,576

  Our Lady of Peace RC First

  Heating improvements

  13,473

  Our Lady of Peace RC Middle

  Heating improvements

  30,875

  Baylis Court

  Heating improvements

  24,700

  Beechwood

  Heating improvements

  49,400

  St. Bernard's Convent

  Heating improvements

  23,465

  NDS 3

  Wexham Secondary, Slough and Eton CE Secondary

  Two school package for replacement of defective window frames

  210,381

  Marish Infant, William Penn Primary

  Two school package for replacement of defective and rotten windows

  219,048

  Arbor Vale Special

  Early years provision

  17,028

  NDS 4

  Godolphin Junior

  Replacement of temporary classrooms

  121,560

  1 Total Berkshire LEA NDS 1 allocation

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions Where home postcode is in the local authority district of Slough, 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  FEFC funded

  Non-FEFC funded

  16–18

  Adult

  16–18

  Adult

  Year

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  FT

  PT

  1996–97

  1,175

  371

  242

  4,725

  19

  34

  35

  121

  1997–98

  1,138

  340

  243

  4,533

  11

  86

  32

  163

  1998–99

  1,082

  380

  449

  4,325

  38

  113

  67

  909

  1999–2000

  974

  453

  552

  4,385

  16

  123

  46

  732

  Modern apprenticeships

  Since 2 May 1997, we know of 801 starts on Modern Apprenticeships in the Slough constituency (as at 31 October 2000). Broken down by financial year these are:

  Financial year

  Foundation modem apprenticeships1

  Advanced modern apprenticeships2

  Total

  1997–98

  1

  127

  128

  1998–99

  27

  134

  161

  1999–2000

  115

  150

  265

  2000–01 (to date)

  157

  90

  247

  Total

  300

  501

  801

  1 Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as National Traineeships, were introduced nationally in September 1997.

  2 Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as Modern Apprenticeships, were introduced nationally in September 1995.

  Note:

  1. The Trainee Database System (TDS), from which these data are taken, is less complete than Management Information supplied to the Department by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) (around 95 per cent.)

  2. In addition, the postcode information on the TDS, from which parliamentary constituency data are compiled, are 95 per cent. complete.

  3. TEC Management Information does not provide information at parliamentary constituency level.

  Source:

  WBTYP trainee database
  232W
  Labour market

  The working age employment rate in Slough UA in autumn 2000 was 77.8 per cent., above the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 78.9 per cent., in autumn 1998 was 71.4 per cent., and in autumn 1999 was 77.7 per cent. As can be seen, these data are volatile and our best interpretation of the trend in the employment rate for Slough since 1997 is that it has been broadly flat.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 3.2 per cent. in December 1997 to 2.1 per cent. in December 2000 in the constituency of Slough.

  To the end of October 2000, 824 young people have joined the New Deal, with a total of 371 entering employment. 280 of these entered into sustained employment.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each English local education authority,(a) the amount spent per primary pupil, (b) the amount spent per secondary pupil and (c) the amount spent per primary pupil as a percentage of the amount per secondary pupil for each of the past three years. [145029]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The information on funding per pupil is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  233W
  These figures are based on education Standard Spending Assessments combined with central Government grant. They demonstrate a trend showing gradual convergence between overall primary and secondary funding. It is, of course, for each local education authority ultimately to decide the balance between primary and secondary funding for its schools.

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost of ministerial travel was(a) within the UK and (b) outside the UK for his Department for each of the last three years. [147232]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The cost of overseas travel by Ministers in this Department for the last three financial years is as follows:

  2 May 1997 to 31 March 1998: £79,171

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999: £116,886

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000: £88,168.

  These costs were included in the figures on Ministers visits overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W. Travel within the United Kingdom is undertaken by a variety of means— car, rail and air. Information on the cost of such travel is not held centrally. All travel complied with the requirements of the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".

  Child Minders
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will broaden the criteria for the registration of child minders to enable nightworkers and lone parents working unsocial hours to benefit from the Working Families Tax Credit. [147422]

  Ms Hodge
  All working parents, subject to their income, are eligible to receive Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC). The Childcare Tax Credit (CTC) element of WFTC can meet up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs.

  WFTC helps with the cost of overnight care where it is done by a child care provider who is registered under the Children Act. But we recognise that some parents, with certain working hours or particular needs, have little option except to employ child care providers who fall outside the eligible arrangements. We are looking at the scope to extend access to the CTC for these groups and what quality assurance arrangements would be appropriate.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Minister with 234W
  responsibility for School Standards will reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere's letter of November 2000, concerning teacher recruitment. [147471]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The reply to the hon. Member's letter has been issued today.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what support his Department offers to people with acquired brain injury; [147957]

  (2) what plans he has to help individuals with acquired brain injury back into work. [147958]

  Ms Hodge
  The Employment Service provides a range of services which support people with acquired brain injury. It provides a network of Disability Employment Advisers, who, in addition to providing advice about job opportunities, act as the gateway to specialist programmes aimed at securing a return to work. One of these is Work Preparation, for which the Employment Service contracts with local providers who deliver flexible programmes tailored to the needs of each individual. Other measures which can be used to help people with acquired brain injury are the Access to Work Programme and the Job Introduction Scheme.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he gives to local authorities in Greater Manchester on support for vocational rehabilitation for individuals with acquired brain injury. [147959]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department does not give any guidance to local authorities. Support for vocational rehabilitation, including support for those with acquired brain injury, is provided by the Employment Service, which contracts with various providers to deliver services to meet local needs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Romania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the exit strategy report produced by her Department concerning the Romania Information Centre. [147211]

  Clare Short
  The report entitled "Romanian Information Centre—Appraisal Report" produced by an independent consultant and funded by my Department will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-governmental organisations and charities her Department supports in Romania. [147210]
  235W
  Clare Short
  At present, my Department is providing support to the following non-governmental organisations and charities in Romania:

  1. Groundwork Blackburn

  2. Romanian Association for Community Development

  3. Emergency Services Despatch Centre

  4. Casa loana—ACASA Project

  5. Support To Enlaka Rural Community

  6. Assistance To CIER Constanta

  7. Nursing School—Dr. Sofaer

  8. ASHR Centre For Handicapped Women

  9. CDM—Strategic Planning For Local Admin

  10. Perspective Magazine

  11. Rehabilitation Centre For Handicapped People

  12. CODECS—Open University

  13. Light Into Europe—Air Ambulance

  14. Clean Coal Technologies

  15. CIR—Central De Informare Roman

  16. Fire Aid International

  17. Hawkesley Trust

  18. Info-Crafts Project

  19. Lamont Centre—Cluj

  20. Romani Criss

  21. Memory Centre

  22. Craft Foundation

  23. SENSE International

  24. Unicul Sens—Kindergarden

  25. ICAR Foundation

  26. Children Of The Future

  27. Transrural Trust

  28. Romani Coneci

  29. ANHR Arad

  30. Project Ruth

  31. The Ellenor Foundation

  32. Ungureni Orphanage Trust

  33. Ian 2001.

  India
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Indian Government concerning the treatment of religious minorities in India. [147215]

  Clare Short
  I recently visited Madhya Pradesh and discussed this issue with the Chief Minister. On my previous visits to India I discussed the issue with Federal Ministers in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. UK development assistance to India is targeted on poor people. Ethnic and religious minorities tend to be disproportionately poor. Our efforts are focused on improving their livelihoods and respect for their rights.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the meetings she attended with Indian Government officials during her recent visit to India. [147214]

  Clare Short
  In Delhi, I met the Union Ministers for Finance, Mr. Yashwant Sinha; for Health and Family Welfare, Dr. C. P. Thakur; and for Power, Mr. Suresh Prabhu. In Madhya Pradesh, I met the Chief Minister,236W
  Mr. Digvijay Singh and the Minister of Finance, Col. Ajay Mushran, as well as the Chief Secretary, Mr. K. S. Sharma, and other senior officials.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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) her 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. [146592]

  Clare Short
  We carry out regular monitoring of public attitudes to development in order to inform and monitor the impact of the public education work of the Department.

  The details requested are as follows: a study of public attitudes was undertaken in 1997–98 at a cost of £43,000; there was no expenditure on surveys in 1998–99; and further studies costing a total of around £45,000 were undertaken in 1999–2000.

  These consisted of: a general public attitudes survey costing £28,200; a schoolchildren's attitudes survey costing £14,700; and a readership survey of "Developments" magazine costing £1,804.

  In financial year 2000–01 we have undertaken a general public opinion study costing £33,000. A schoolchildren's survey is currently under way at an estimated cost of £9,800. The results of all these surveys are available on the DFID website.

  We do not hold information on any surveys carried out between 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  Cancer Rates (Southern Iraq)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she has received the conclusions of the World Health Organisation study on the possible increase of cancer rates in southern Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [146383]

  Clare Short
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) have not yet undertaken this study. WHO's Head of Non-Communicable Diseases is in Baghdad this week, leading a team of experts in reviewing the Iraqi Ministry of Health's capacity in epidemiological surveillance, including their ability to monitor and register cancer, including leukaemia, across Iraq.

  We have offered WHO support for improving health information systems in Iraq and are discussing funding their proposed programme to build Iraqi capacity to monitor cancer epidemiology.

  Nigeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what requests her Department has received for assistance for Nigeria's Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission. [146830]

  Clare Short
  We have received no requests for assistance for Nigeria's Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission.
  237W

  Reproductive Health Policy
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to her American counterpart concerning the USA's international reproductive health policy. [147596]

  Clare Short
  I have as yet had no contact with the new US Administration. The implications of the decision announced by President Bush on 22 January will become clearer as new guidance is issued. This decision by the US Administration will make no difference to the commitment of our Government to helping poor people access good quality family planning and sexual and reproductive health services.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Ministers and officials in her Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if she will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if she will make a statement. [148078]

  Clare Short
  I met one of the Hinduja brothers at a dinner in honour of President Carter on 7 October 1999. Mr. S. P. Hinduja had two days before contacted the Head of DFID India about possible co-operation with the Hinduja Foundation. Mr. S. P. Hinduja wrote to me on 19 October 1999 suggesting a meeting with me about possible co-operation which I declined and suggested a meeting at official level. Following a meeting with a representative of the Hinduja Foundation at official level on 23 November 1999, I and one of my officials accepted an invitation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja and Mr. G. P. Hinduja to a lunch on 11 January 2000 at which co-operation between DFID and the Hinduja Foundation on HIV/AIDS work in India and a possible publication with the Hindi community on the 2015 International Development targets was discussed.

  I have had no further contact with the Hinduja brothers. No concrete proposals for co-operation between DFID and the Hinduja Foundation were identified.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the funding of ex-gratia payments to former Far Eastern prisoners of war or their surviving spouses. [148536]

  Mr. Bayley
  The authority to make these payments will rest entirely on the Appropriation Act. Parliamentary approval for this new scheme will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Central Government Administered Social Security Benefits and Other Payments Vote (Class XII Vote 1).

  Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £190 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
  238W

  Winter Fuel Payment/Free Television Licence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library an estimate for each parliamentary constituency of(a) the number of beneficiaries from the Winter Fuel Payment and (b) the number of recipients of free television licences. [147806]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. The latest figures for Winter Fuel Payments and estimates of the over-75 population who may benefit from a free television licence for each constituency in Great Britain have been placed in the Library.

  TV Licensing administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC. I understand that geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences are not available.

WALES

  Policing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent meetings he has had with the First Secretary to discuss policing in Wales. [146524]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a number of issues, including policing in Wales. In addition, I meet, from time to time, the four Welsh Chief Constables.

  Census
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the census in Wales. [146525]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a range of subjects, including this one.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the progress of the Government's commitment to reduce health service waiting lists. [146526]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly's First Minister and the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales. The subject of waiting lists is, of course, often on the agenda.

  Benefit Recovery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Secretary of State for Social Security to discuss the impact of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Regulations 1997 upon the people of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [146527]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding this issue. He is now examining, with the claimants' solicitors, ways of speeding up and simplifying the system, and is proposing to issue "nil" certificates when interim
  239W
  payments are made, to extend the time for which recovery certificates are valid, and to accept sworn statements from former miners when they become ill.

  Optical Electronics
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet representatives of businesses involved in optical electronics in North Wales. [146528]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend visited Avimo Optical Imaging, Prestatyn in September and is due to visit Thales Optronics, Llandudno Junction (formerly Pilkington Optronics) next week.

  Dairy Farming
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on dairy farming in Wales. [146530]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend discusses a range of issues in his weekly meetings with the First Minister. I also regularly meet the Assembly Agriculture Minister to discuss a variety of issues.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales, with particular reference to the future of the steel industry. [146531]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Minister and discuss a wide range of issues including manufacturing and the steel industry.

  The UK steel industry is among the most productive in the world. Each steelworker today is four times more productive than he or she was 20 years ago. Seventy per cent. of steel qualities available today have been developed in the last 10 years to meet increasing demands for stronger, lighter materials. Those are the reasons why, despite its current difficulties, I firmly believe that the UK steel industry has a future in today's knowledge driven economy.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with the First Secretary to discuss manufacturing industry in Wales. [146542]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Minister and discuss a wide range of issues including manufacturing.

  Manufacturing is a key part of the economy. The Government appreciate the difficulties facing manufacturers in some sectors and are supporting them by providing macro-economic stability. Low inflation, low interest rates and sound public finances will help UK manufacturers in the long term.

  Dee Estuary
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Assembly Environment Secretary on cross-border concerns relating to the environment of the Dee Estuary. [146532]
  240W
  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions on environmental issues with the First Minister, and I have regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Transport, Planning and the Environment to discuss a range of environmental matters.

  In the vast majority of cases such decisions as they affect Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, in discussion with the lead Whitehall Department and the Environment Agency where appropriate.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about current unemployment levels in Wales. [146533]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister and I hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, when we discuss a wide range of issues including unemployment levels in Wales. I also addressed the Wales New Deal Task Force in November on the Government's future plans for the New Deal.

  Since the Government's New Deal was launched throughout Wales, there has been a 73 per cent. fall in the number of 18–24 year olds unemployed and claiming the Jobseeker's Allowance for six months or more from 6,555 in April 1998 to 1,774 in October 2000.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about unemployment levels in Wales. [146521]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Minister and I hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, when we discuss a wide range of issues including employment levels in Wales.

  This Government's continued firm handling of their sound economic policy has seen a significant reduction in the number of people claiming benefits in Wales, with a fall in the claimant count from 4.7 per cent. in December 1999 to 4.3 per cent. in December 2000.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Sports Council for Wales about encouraging artistic and sporting talent in Wales. [146534]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met the Chairman of the Sports Council for Wales to discuss general issues affecting sport in Wales.

  Wales has an excellent record of achievements in many activities, and I am keen to encourage opportunities for all people to take part in sport within the community.

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the process for deciding cross-border issues relating to the environment. [146535]
  241W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The bilateral concordat between the Assembly and the DETR sets out the principles for dealing with cross-border environmental issues and the arrangements for joint sponsorship of the Environment Agency.

  Garment Manufacturing
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last had discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the future of garment manufacturing in Wales. [146536]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet my ministerial colleagues and discuss a wide range of issues.

  Welsh companies can benefit from the Government's 12 point plan to help the industry improve its competitive position in the global market.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in Wales. [146537]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Over the past weeks, I have discussed the future of the steel industry with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have also held numerous meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales.

  In addition, I have met Sir Brian Moffat, the Chairman of Corus, twice.

  I have to tell the House that the Government have not been given any detail about the forthcoming re-structuring of the British steel industry, much of which is based in Wales. The company has not engaged with the Government. I regret this, and I urge Corus to recognise the record of our steel works and steelworkers, and not to take any short term decisions.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the steel industry in Wales. [146543]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet ministerial colleagues and discuss a wide range of issues including, of course, the steel industry in Wales.

  Prisoner Release Scheme
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the early prisoner release scheme in Wales. [146538]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of social exclusion in Wales. [146540]
  242W
  Mr. Hanson
  The National Assembly for Wales published a reported entitled "Mapping social exclusion in Wales", 1999 Edition. The report contains 50 indicators related to aspects of social exclusion and maps their concentration across Wales. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  In December, the National Assembly published a consultation paper entitled "Regenerating Our Most Disadvantaged Communities, Communities First". Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  In addition, the Welsh Affairs Committee published a report on social exclusion in Wales on 15 January. The report acknowledged that social exclusion affects people of many different kinds and that it is not unique to Wales; it is a fact of life across the United Kingdom.

  This Government are committed to tackling social exclusion and I welcome the high priority that the National Assembly places on bridging the gap between the most deprived communities in Wales and the more affluent ones.

  Crime and Resources
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chief constables of Wales to discuss crime and police resources in Wales. [146541]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met all four Welsh chief constables on 15 January to discuss a number of issues affecting policing in Wales, including crime and police resources.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the First Secretary and chief constables to discuss police funding and crime levels in Wales. [146546]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met all four Welsh chief constables on 15 January to discuss a number of issues affecting policing in Wales, including police funding and crime levels. I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including this one.

  Miners' Compensation
  23. Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the number of miners' compensation claims which have been (a) made and (b) settled in Wales. [146544]
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have discussed this issue on several occasions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with ministerial colleagues.

  The number of claims made for respiratory disease in Wales is 27,446 while the total number of claims in Wales settled in full and final terms is 861.

  The number of claims made for vibration white finger in Wales is 15,533 while the total number of claims in Wales settled in full and final terms is 3,674.

  The Government are determined to see all claims settled as quickly as possible and my ministerial colleagues and I are giving this very full attention. For

  243W
  example, on 4 January I chaired a very constructive first meeting of a Welsh sub-group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group which I established specifically to address coal health issues in Wales. The group will meet on a regular basis and will discuss progress made and ways of further speeding up the processing of coal health claims.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the operation of the New Deal in Wales. [146545]

  Mr. David Hanson
  The Government are committed to creating employment opportunity for all to fulfil our long-term employment ambition that, by the end of the decade, there will be a greater proportion of people in work than ever before.

  The New Working Age Agency, to be set up in 2001, will bring together parts of the Employment Service and Benefits Agency to give greater support to people of working age.

  The Government announced on the 30 November that we had reached our New Deal target for getting 250,000 people off welfare and into work. Over 17,000 18 to 24-year-olds in Wales have obtained employment since the New Deal was introduced and, there has been a 73 per cent. fall in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed and claiming the Job Seeker's Allowance for six months in Wales over the same period.

  Police Funding
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary and the Home Secretary on the funding of the police in Wales. [146547]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet both the First Secretary and the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the funding of police in Wales.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet chief constables in Wales to discuss police funding and crime levels. [146539]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met all four Welsh chief constables on 15 January to discuss a number of issues affecting policing in Wales, including police funding and crime levels.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the funding of S4C2, the Digital BBC channel for Wales. [146549]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet my right hon. Friend regularly and we discuss a range of issues.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to allow children of Welsh parents born in England to be entitled to a Welsh birth certificate. [146548]
  244W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The rules on birth certificates are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Dutch Presidency's proposal for a parliamentary dimension for the oversight of the ESDP. [146456]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]A copy was placed in the House Libraries on 26 January.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the proposals of the Dutch Presidency for the parliamentary oversight of the ESDP. [146457]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]The Dutch proposal was circulated as a basis for discussion and as such does not require a formal response.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148076]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  All relevant papers will be made available to the inquiry being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond QC.

  European Disability Forum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding from(a) EU and (b) UK Government sources is available to the European Disability Forum; and when he last received representations from them. [147458]

  Ms Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Disability Forum received 750,000 euro from the European Commission for the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 plus 100,000 euro for co-ordination of the European Day of Disabled People. The provisional budget for 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 is 900,000 euro (inclusive of funding for the European Day of Disabled People 2001).

  I am not aware of any UK Government funding for this organisation.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many export licences for military dual-use equipment have been refused to
  245W
  (a) Angola, (b) Namibia, (c) Zimbabwe, (d) Rwanda, (e) Uganda and (f) Burundi on the grounds that there was a possibility it would be used in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [146831]

  Mr. Wilson
  Details of export licensing decisions between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 have been set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. These reports list by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and give details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted.

  Between August 1998, when the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) started, and 9 February 2000 one application for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) was refused to Zimbabwe. This application was set out in the 1999 Annual Report and was refused against Criterion 4 (preservation of regional peace, security and stability) of the EU Code of Conduct. We judged it highly probable that the equipment would be used by Zimbabwean forces deployed in the DRC.

  Between when the Prime Minister set out the basis of our new tighter policy on arms sales to countries intervening in the DRC, 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 184–85W, and 17 January 2001, two applications for a SIEL were refused to Uganda. These applications were refused on the grounds that there was a clear risk that the equipment would be used in the DRC. These will be set out in the 2000 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls in due course.

  UN Compensation Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the relationship is between(a) Iraq's unutilised oil for food moneys and (b) reparations via the UN Compensation Fund; and if he will make a statement. [147216]

  Mr. Wilson
  Of the nearly $12 billion in the UN Iraq account as of 19 January 2001, $4.5 billion of "oil for food" revenue remains unallocated by Iraq, depriving its people of much needed humanitarian relief. This money remains available to be spent by Iraq under future phases of the "oil for food" programme. There is no relationship between this money and reparations under the UN Compensation Fund. However, it is worth noting that as a measure to give further support to the Iraqi people, the UN Compensation Commission agreed to reduce from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. the proportion of revenue dedicated to the UN Compensation Fund under Phase IX of the "oil for food" programme, so releasing more money for food, medicines and other humanitarian relief.

  Brussels Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 January; and if he will make a statement. [147160]

  Mr. Vaz
  The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 January adopted the "A" points listed in document No. 5419/01. It also noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its session of 29–30 November in Brussels listed in document No. 12940/00. Copies of these documents will 246W
  be deposited in the House Libraries as soon as they are available. The European Parliament did not transmit a record of its resolutions, decisions and opinions at its 11–15 December session in Strasbourg in time for adoption by the GAC on 22 January; they will go forward for adoption at the GAC on 26 February 2001.

  Open debate on conflict prevention

  In open debate, the Council agreed that the EU possessed appropriate resources and instruments to play a major role in conflict prevention, but needed to manage them more coherently and systematically.

  Orientation debate on strengthening the EU's external action

  The Council held its first ever debate on the priorities and quality of the EU's external actions, including external assistance.

  The Council expressed broad support for Commission reforms covering both the process and the implementation of external assistance, and hoped that they would continue. The Council also agreed on the need for greater coherence, focus, flexibility and consistency in the use of external relations instruments. The Presidency concluded that Council views were converging on priorities for external action, namely: neighbouring countries (including the accession countries), poverty reduction, conflict prevention, and co-operation with major international actors. In addition, external actions needed to be responsive to both new expenditure pressures and to long-term priorities. These conclusions, together with the discussion itself and the Presidency paper on external action reforms would provide general guidance for the Commission in preparing the 2002 budget. (The Council remitted to COREPER further work on common strategies and other suggestions which arose during the debate, including the Foreign Secretary's proposal that the GAC hold a follow-up debate later in the year in connection with the draft budget).

  Western Balkans

  The GAC welcomed the free and fair elections in Serbia in December. It underlined the need for the FRY to co-operate fully with the ICTY and comply with its obligations under UNSCR 1244 and the Dayton and Paris agreements. The Council agreed to send an EU ministerial troika to Belgrade in early February. The GAC urged the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro to agree on a new constitutional arrangement, within a federal framework. The GAC also called for the speedy release of Kosovo Albanian and other prisoners held without charge or on political grounds. It strongly condemned terrorist acts by ethnic Albanians in southern Serbia, while welcoming the FRY authorities' commitment to UNSCR 1244. The Council thanked Mr. Kouchner for his work as UNMIK Special Representative in Kosovo and pledged its support for his successor, Mr. Haekkerup.

  The Council approved the terms of reference for the high level EU/Albania Steering Group, which is to help Albania meet the requirements of the Stabilisation and Association agreement.

  The GAC also discussed the use of depleted uranium in the Balkans. It agreed that this issue must be dealt with transparently, and that NATO would remain in the lead.
  247W
  Middle east peace process

  The GAC welcomed President Clinton's efforts to seek a breakthrough in the peace process, and stated the EU's wish to work closely with the Bush Administration on the issue. It also expressed its support for the current negotiations in Taba, Egypt. The Council called on Israel to end its withholding of revenue payments due to the Palestinian Authority.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo

  The Council condemned the assassination of President Kabila, and called for all parties to the Lusaka Agreement to respect their commitments under this agreement.

  El Salvador

  The Council expressed its deepest sympathy to the victims and families of those lost in the El Salvador earthquake, and called for efficient donor co-ordination, both immediately and in the longer-term. It recalled the support being provided by the Community and member states.

  Nice follow up: IGC/Nice Treaty

  The Presidency announced that the Nice Treaty will be signed by Ministers in Nice on 26 February 2001. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the Presidency's plans for broad consultation involving all relevant actors, including national Parliaments.

  Nice follow up: EU enlargement

  The Presidency presented their work programme and emphasised their intentions to keep to and, where possible, proceed more rapidly than the Commission's timetable for negotiations agreed at Nice.

  Any other business: Bananas

  A discussion on the EU's banana import regime is now remitted to a future Council.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) past and (b) future venues of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow; and what have been its costs to date. [147460]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since the launch of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" information initiative, I have visited the following cities, towns and boroughs: Newcastle; Sunderland; Hull; Rotherham; Manchester; London; Bristol; Bath; Nuneaton; Birmingham; Leicester; Leeds; Liverpool; Norwich; Southampton; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Rosyth; Cardiff; Newport; Reading; Newbury; Swindon; Oxford; Slough; Henley on Thames; Wolverhampton; Loughborough; Northampton; Brent; and Tower Hamlets.

  In the next two months, I plan to visit Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Sheffield, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Brighton, Hove and Hastings.

  So far, the total cost of my programme of visits has been about £100,000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many responses were received to the questionnaire attached to the "Your Britain, Your Europe" leaflet; how many leaflets have been distributed; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [147466]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 77W.
  248W
  We have now distributed all 17,000 copies of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" leaflet. The total design and printing costs came to £3,862.51.

  European Women's Lobby
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last(a) met and (b) received representations from the European Women's Lobby; and if he will make a statement. [147514]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State has not met the European Women's Lobby. Relevant officials come into contact with the Lobby during regular European-level meetings and the Lobby circulates publications on women's issues to interested parties in all member states.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on planned information campaigns for UK embassy and consulate staff on the euro. [147463]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the Treasury's "Fourth Report on Euro Preparations", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the outcomes of the oil-for-food programme for Iraq. [147374]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on this subject on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 405W.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the money from the Iraqi "oil-for-food" programme, held in a UN administered account, was spent on(a) food and medicine, (b) war reparations and (c) payments to the UN in the last 12 months. [147370]

  Mr. Wilson
  During the last 12 months the UN has continued to direct 66 per cent. of "oil for food" revenue to the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq, 30 per cent. to the UN Compensation Fund and 4 per cent. to UN administration of the programme. However, for the current phase of "oil for food" (December 2000-June 2001) the UN has agreed to reduce the UN Compensation Fund share to 25 per cent. and increase the humanitarian programme share to 71 per cent. as a gesture to the Iraqi people.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the ending of sanctions against Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [147381]

  Mr. Wilson
  In response to recent representations by the Government of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we have given assurances that the process leading to the suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions on Iraq can begin when Iraq chooses to co-operate. SCR1284—a UK
  249W
  initiative—continues to offer Iraq the opportunity to make quick progress in this process. We continue to urge Iraq to accept this resolution.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to combat the smuggling of embargoed goods to and from Iraq; and what role Turkey plays in this process. [147025]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The UN sanctions regime continues to be largely effective in controlling the flow of embargoed goods into and out of Iraq and denying the Iraqi regime of funds outside UN control. However we remain concerned about breaches of sanctions, in particular the smuggling of Iraqi oil through the Gulf and across Iraq's land borders, which has the effect of depriving the Iraqi people of humanitarian aid under the UN "oil for food" programme.

  Where we have firm evidence that embargoed goods are being smuggled, we press Governments, including that of Turkey, both bilaterally and through the UN Sanctions Committee to take action against the smugglers. We also continue to play an active role in the Multinational Interception Force, which through its regular patrolling, helps to deter smuggling through the Gulf.

  Iran
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iran. [147255]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary last met his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kharrazi at UNGA on 15 September last year and reaffirmed our commitment to constructive engagement with Iran.
  250W
  Our policy, in line with that of our EU partners, remains to encourage the reforms already under way in Iran while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern.

  Ecuador
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the British Government have provided to help Ecuador deal with the oil spill off the Galapagos Islands. [147373]

  Mr. Battle
  We are providing £50,000 to help Ecuador protect the integrity of this flagship World Heritage Site; and we have informed the Government of Ecuador that we are ready to share the UK's experience in contingency planning to avoid or repair damage to sensitive marine environments. At an international co-ordination meeting in Quito on 24 January the Ecuadorean Environment Minister expressed publicly his warm appreciation of support from the UK.

  Drugs Control
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the management of United Nations Drugs Control Programme funds. [148058]

  Mr. Battle
  We have, with a number of other donors, raised concerns about UNDCP programme management. In light of recent press reporting on this issue, I wrote to Mr. Arlacchi on 23 January seeking his assurance that UK contributions have been managed properly and used effectively, and encouraging early progress towards a more transparent system of project management and evaluation. In his reply of 24 January, Mr. Arlacchi assured me that he had invited a management audit of the UNDCP by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services in New York, and that UK funds had been properly managed. In response to requests from donor countries, Mr. Arlacchi has also produced a paper on management reform which we and other donors are studying.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Railtrack
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to accede to the request from Railtrack plc for an early payment of a £1 billion subsidy.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority have begun discussions with Railtrack on the timing of certain payments due to it under the rail regulator's periodic review which was concluded recently. I cannot anticipate the outcome of those discussions.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am pleased or displeased by my noble friend's Answer. Can the Minister confirm or deny my understanding of what he said in a television interview on Sunday? My noble friend was asked about the shambles that had been created in recent months. He appeared to respond that the present board which had created the shambles, and demonstrated that it probably could not run a toffee shop, would be left in final control. Is that the final answer, or is it possible for my noble friend, or somebody else, to dispose of the board if it does not do the job?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the point I made was that the problems of the railways appeared to the Government to be more a matter of management than ownership. If Railtrack does not do its job the people who will dispose of the board will be the shareholders. In acting to safeguard their £5 billion investment in the company, the shareholders should ensure that the board is up to scratch. In turn, it is the job of the board to ensure that the management is up to scratch.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as 75 per cent of Railtrack's revenue comes from the public sector it is logical that the taxpayer should get something back from their investment in terms of the assets? I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight group. I hear today that Railtrack's debts will increase to £8 billion in two years' time. It seems to be a funny way to run a railway.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we intend to ensure that Railtrack, together with government and other parties, invests to improve the railways. I am
684
pleased to note that in the past year its investment in the railways has been double the average figure pre-privatisation. I also note that because of the problems at Hatfield its shareholders are likely to suffer a Loss of £600 million. The impact of that loss should bring to bear the rigours of good corporate governance to ensure that the public get value for the money that they put it, just as the shareholders wish to protect their interests.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people regard it as extraordinary that the more incompetent the company appears to be the more willing are the Government to hand it money? Will the £1 billion, or any other amount of money, to be provided to Railtrack in the short term come out of the amounts allocated to railway investment in the 10-year Transport Plan? Will the money to be spent on keeping the company afloat and fettling the tracks that it has allowed to get into such a bad condition be deducted from the long-term investment which was otherwise promised; and, if so, which schemes will be prejudiced?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we do not anticipate that the £1 billion will come from other areas of our budgets in the Transport Plan. That investment has been allowed for by the regulator, and Railtrack simply seeks a re-phasing of the money. The Government's priority is to work in close co-operation with Railtrack and other elements of the railway industry—passengers, the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority and, above all, the train operating companies—to try to put in place the confidence which, for understandable reasons, has been lacking in recent times.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I declare an interest as a frequent railway user. Many passengers have been put off by what happened at Hatfield and the revelations since. Can my noble friend tell the House what has happened to passenger numbers since then?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there was a sharp drop in passenger numbers following the disaster at Hatfield. That is why Railtrack's shareholders will suffer losses of £600 million: £400 million in compensation to the train operating companies and some £200 million for the rapid improvement of the track. The latest figures indicate that the number of passengers who travel by rail is the same as this time last year despite all the problems. On the London commuting lines passenger numbers are up 4 per cent on the same period last year. The problem persists on the Intercity lines. However, those figures appear to challenge the view that it will take many years before people return to the railways.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that none of the additional money is required to pay the penalties that the regulator will be obliged to impose on Railtrack as a result of its failure to keep train services running properly?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the penalties exacted by the rail regulator on Railtrack,

685
and any other penalties that it might incur, go to the Strategic Rail Authority. Therefore, that money is recycled in the industry through the Strategic Rail Authority, whose new status formally begins tomorrow and to which we look for leadership and vision in the years ahead.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, will the noble Lord and his colleagues undertake to look again at the absolutely insane structure created by the privatisation of 25 separate train operating companies?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the structures which we inherited were overly fragmented. We have put in place a re-franchising process to be run by the Strategic Rail Authority which may reduce the number of franchises. I believe that the movement in the market will ensure that those franchises are concentrated in fewer hands in terms of ownership. However, I should like the House to recognise the real efforts that are being made by all parties in the industry, particularly through the Rail Recovery Action Group, to get the trains running again. I am delighted that they have been able to achieve slightly above the 85 per cent return to normality which was promised this week. The latest figures suggest that about 89 per cent of the 18,500 trains operated each day are currently running.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I find it all rather confusing. Following all the questions which have been put, can my noble friend at least tell the House who is ultimately responsible for seeing that these massive subsidies to a private enterprise are used in the public interest? Who is the responsible person or body?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the responsible body is the rail regulator. That office has been set up to oversee the activities of Railtrack, which is not a normal company in the sense that it is the custodian of an important national asset and the recipient of considerable public subsidies. I believe noble Lords will see that we have considerably increased the rigour of the regulatory regime.

Crime and Society: Lord Birt's Advisory Role
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they have received from the Government's adviser on crime, Lord Birt, about the increase in the level of serious crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, was appointed as an unpaid adviser by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to look at criminality and long-term social trends. His work is being considered alongside work currently being
686
undertaken by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' department and the Treasury, about which Parliament was informed on 7th November. This work is drawing together experience of improving the performance of the criminal justice system in England to identify the way forward for the longer term. The Government will ensure that any firm conclusions which emerge from this work will be reported to Parliament.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minster for that information. It is about eight months since the announcement of the appointment. Will he confirm that it was announced that the adviser would work one day a week drawing up law and order strategy. Perhaps I may ask three questions. First, when can we expect to discuss the recommendation or the advice offered by the noble Lord on these issues? Secondly, will it be published, as was the case with the advice of Keith Hellawell, the government adviser on drug initiatives? Thirdly, has there been any effect on the law and order situation in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, gives his advice regularly. Any firm conclusions or new policies which emerge from his regular reporting to the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and other colleagues will be reported through to Parliament in due course.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will those conclusions and the advice given be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they will be, because they will be reported to Parliament.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, to what extent is the noble Lord, Lord Birt, working with or in connection with Lord Justice Auld?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, all new thinking that comes forward will be taken together in the round. Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts and John Halliday's review of our sentencing framework are matters which bear to be considered together because they inform the way we look at the criminal justice system.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what is the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in crime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has extensive knowledge in a whole range of social areas. No doubt he brings his freshness of view and his—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe governments stand to be advised by people with an interest in the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, has

687
an interest in this subject. I invite noble Lords to support that. It will give great aid to government formulation of policy.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, how many times has the Minister met the noble Lord in his official capacity to discuss these matters? Can we expect to hear any result of this work in today's debate? I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the advice will be made public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Birt, formally. Perhaps I should. He meets regularly with the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. No doubt all those thoughts feed through to our increasingly successful strategy for dealing with crime and its reduction.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I also have extensive knowledge in this field. When will the Home Secretary appoint me to something?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, since I have been a Minister in this House it is apparent that the noble Lord has a wide range of interests. We always listen to his views and concerns with great interest.

Animal Rights Protests: Protection of Public
2.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to protect individuals and the public from attacks and intimidation by those who claim to represent animal rights.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to help the police to tackle violent animal extremists. There are already tough laws to protect business and individuals from violent or threatening protests. But we intend to strengthen these further to give the police additional powers to ensure that businesses and individuals can go properly about their lawful business without fear of violence or intimidation.
The measures we propose will allow the police to take action to prevent extremists protesting outside people's homes and will also strengthen the law against the sending of malicious communications. In addition, the Government are consulting closely with the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to achieve an effective and consistent approach to enforcement of the law in this area.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. Has he seen comment by those threatened that the most recent measures announced are not adequate to counter attacks on the
688
families and properties of those who are thought—sometimes incorrectly—to be engaged in animal experiments? Can the Minister confirm that Thalidomide was not tested on animals before it was marketed and that it led to very distressing results?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's second point is not part of my policy portfolio. My noble friend Lord Hunt will endeavour to furnish the noble Lord with that information.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his first point. It is important to get the right measures to deal with this particular animal rights extremism. We shall want to listen carefully to those who are properly concerned for their welfare and security.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government agree that such threats comprise one of the most dangerous forms of terrorism in the UK at the moment? In the light of that, is it not important that everyone—particularly the investment community—should stand firm against such intimidation? Can the Minister draw the attention of this to the fund managers of Phillips & Drew, Panmure Gordon and the board of HSBC, which gave in to the first whiff of a threat from the animal rightists and which set a deplorable example of corporate cowardice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that there will be widespread support for those comments. It is an appalling form of terrorism. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary raised this issue in the debates on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We are and shall be taking firm measures to deal with these problems, particularly those of intimidation and malicious communications.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome that response. The sooner tough action is taken to deal with these gangsters, the better. They are acting in a way which is utterly counter-productive and forfeits respect for the cause they seek to serve, as they did when they released mink into the wild at great cost to the natural heritage. Does the Minister recognise that there is widespread unease from those responsibly concerned with animal welfare? Does he further recognise that this unease could be relieved to a marked extent by discouraging the unnecessary use of animals in science and by the inspectorate being adequately resourced, strong and austere enough to ensure that high standards of care are maintained in laboratories?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a widely shared view that we have one of the best regulatory systems in the world for dealing with animal welfare and experimentation. We, and our Government in particular, should be proud of that record. I concur with the noble Lord's earlier points which reflect comments made in your Lordships' House today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's proposals to tighten up protection for

689
people being terrorised by animal rights protesters. Does he recognise how extremely serious this matter is? Is he aware that one lawful establishment outside Oxford was closed down entirely by animal rights protesters? Is he further aware that medical research academics in the university have been threatened, along with their families, including their children? Can he confirm that most medicines have to be tested on animals before they can be sold to the public?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am aware of the final point that she made. We take these threats very seriously indeed. We should be proud that the Home Secretary has announced the release of further funding—a further £1 million—to protect the establishment in Cambridge. Over the past year or so, Cambridgeshire police have arrested some 200 people in an attempt to counter those demonstrations. People should be under no illusion: this kind of lawlessness will be dealt with very firmly by the police. I am conscious of the attacks and intimidation that have taken place at other establishments. I refer in particular to the establishment in Oxfordshire and to Shamrock Farm in Sussex. We are very aware of these issues. We intend to deal with them firmly and give our utmost support to the police in this important work.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, what use is being made of existing powers against those who send letter bombs and either threaten to burn down or try to burn down people's houses or premises?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the police have a wide range of powers under the criminal law and public order legislation which they can use to tackle those problems and to ensure that people can go about their business and lead much happier lives as a consequence. The Public Order Act 1986 provides the police with powers to act in respect of a range of criminal offences relating to public disorder; for example, when threatening or abusive behaviour or harassment occurs. I do not want to go into too much detail about how the security services and the police service conduct themselves in countering terrorist activities. That would be quite wrong. But the House can be assured that they are ever vigilant and are becoming increasingly successful in that endeavour.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with the animal rights movement there is an iron curtain of understanding beyond which it is not possible to convey the importance of animal testing to this country and to the health and welfare of the people living in it? Does he further agree that, as a result, it is necessary to mount a campaign to convince the general public that animal testing is necessary, that these people are merely delaying important developments and that work may go overseas rather than be carried out in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's comments. It was very encouraging to
690
everyone that the Prime Minister took such a clear lead on this issue. We want to encourage the widest possible understanding of the importance of this form of experimentation and the development of medical science as a consequence of that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we look forward to supporting the kind of measures outlined by the Minister when the Bill comes before the House. Are they likely to include some degree of confidentiality for the private addresses of directors, shareholders and so on? I realise that it is a difficult issue, but it is also a very important one.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly understand the noble Lord's point. No doubt it is being carefully considered.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, under what category does the Home Office regard this type of activity? Is it seen as a misuse of freedom of expression; is it seen as civil disobedience; or is it categorised as terrorism?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would depend very much on the activity being undertaken by particular individuals. None of us has a problem with people freely expressing their views, even if we find those views at odds with our own. But it cannot be right that people conduct their campaigns by means of terrorism, violence or intimidation. For that reason, we intend to take firm measures and to give the police the utmost support and encouragement in dealing with the problems as they present themselves.

Zimbabwe: Press Freedom
2.55 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will propose to their partners in the Commonwealth that a voluntary fund be established by the Commonwealth Secretariat, to which member states would be invited to contribute, to pay for the replacement of the printing presses of the Daily News, Harare, destroyed in bomb explosions on 28th January.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government attach great importance to the freedom of the press, especially in the circumstances of Zimbabwe, and deplore the attack on the printing presses of the Daily News in Harare.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that although many messages of sympathy have been received by the Daily News from organisations such as UNESCO, the Media Institute of Southern Africa, the Commonwealth Press Union and the Commonwealth Journalists Association, those now need to be translated into concrete assistance, bearing in mind that replacement of the presses will cost 1.5 million US dollars? Will the noble Baroness ask her colleagues to take the lead in pressing the

691
Commonwealth Secretariat to seek the establishment of a voluntary fund such as is mentioned in my Question?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat to the noble Lord that we condemn the attack, which was clearly intended to silence the independent media in Zimbabwe. I have checked with the Commonwealth Secretariat and there are two Commonwealth funds that could be used. But those funds would have to be drawn on by the Government of Zimbabwe. It is important that the noble Lord should recognise that, like all member states, we contribute to the funding of the Commonwealth Secretariat, but it is an organisation that operates by consensus and where all members are equal. I understand that discussions are under way between those who own the Daily News and others on the possibility of setting up some kind of fund. We would support any measures that would lead to the continuance of an independent press in Zimbabwe, but it would be for others to take the lead.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, have the Government of Zimbabwe expressed any regret about the attacks? Have they made any attempt to ensure that those who carried out the attacks are pursued by the police and brought to justice? If they have done neither of those things, will my noble friend make it clear that the Government of Zimbabwe owe a duty to the Commonwealth and to its people to ensure that such events do not again take place? Will she also make it clear that, in reparation for what are clearly government-inspired attacks on the press in Zimbabwe, the Government of Zimbabwe themselves should pay compensation to the newspaper?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Jonathan Moyo, the Zimbabwe Minister for Information, is reported to have said before the explosion that the Daily News was a,
"security risk to national interest".
After the explosion he was reported as saying that the incident was "most regrettable" and that the culprits would be,
"brought to book in the interests of justice, democracy and freedom of expression".
The Zimbabwe police indicated that they would be carrying out a full investigation. We would urge that investigation to be carried out as a matter of urgency and the culprits brought to justice.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I pay tribute to the courage of certain editors and politicians in Zimbabwe in resisting what has been an increasing disregard of the rule of law. I have two questions. First, would I be right to assume that DfID's aid to Zimbabwe could not include assistance to its press because of the involvement of the government? Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree that, perhaps above all, the international media and the media in this
692
country, which are not exactly short of money, might consider this to be a cause to which they could find every possible reason to contribute?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we deplore the actions being taken in Zimbabwe; namely, trying to harass journalists and to close down the independent press. As regards DfID funding to Zimbabwe, we are focusing on health issues such as AIDS and HIV prevention programmes, rural water and sanitation measures, along with the reform of local government, governance and human rights. We continue to maintain a programme in Zimbabwe for which the 2000–01 allocation is around £14 million. Given that 63 per cent of Zimbabweans live below the poverty line, we have a responsibility to try to help those people. However, we have a clear policy of working on smaller projects, using NGOs and trying to assist the poor in Zimbabwe until such times that we feel more confident about introducing bigger programmes with the government of Zimbabwe.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in this afternoon's debate on the police, my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Lockerbie bombing.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

The Police
3.1 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit rose to call attention to police numbers and morale and to the level of violent crime; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to police numbers and morale and to the level of violent crime. Perhaps a shorter title for this debate would be, "The preservation of the Queen's peace"—that being the second priority of government, second only to the defence of the realm.
We would all, I think, acknowledge that changing moral standards and social pressures have a huge influence on the propensity to violent crime. Criminologists and sociologists will argue about the causes of violent crime, but there can be no argument that the Crown should honour its side of the social contract with the people to preserve the peace. We heard earlier today during Questions expressions of grave concern about the state of the preservation of the Queen's peace in relation to the activities of animal

693
extremists. Nor can there be any argument that the numbers and the morale of the police are crucial in that operation.
Fortunately, the statistics on numbers at least are reasonably reliable and those on sickness and retirement rates shed some light on the otherwise subjective assessment of morale.
Statistics on crime are less reliable and much more difficult to interpret. Inevitably they are only statistics of reported or detected crime. I recollect that during the miners' strike when violent picketing called thousands of officers away from their normal work, crime apparently reduced. That was because there was no one to detect or to receive complaints of crime. Legislation criminalising what were hitherto lawful activities, whether selling bananas by the pound or beef on the bone, driving at 80 miles per hour (chief constables and Ministers excepted, of course) or hunting with hounds, is likely to increase the level of crime. Decriminalising the possession of drugs, late abortion or early sex is likely to reduce the amount of reported crime.
The statistics of violent crime may be more reliable than most, but their reliability and our confidence that we are comparing like with like is greatly affected by the willingness of victims to report criminal incidents. One need not go as far afield as Belfast or Londonderry to see that. In the third world societies of our inner cities, hostility to and lack of confidence in the police ensure that much violent crime goes unreported. In rural areas, the perception that to report lesser crimes will result only in time-wasting form filling has a similar effect. To that extent, the less effective policing is, the less crime will be reported.
Since a recent debate on these issues in another place was largely an exercise in attempts to beat one another into submission with statistical weaponry of great unreliability, I believe that I should issue a health warning: statistics of crime are addictive. They can have unexpected side-effects and dependency on them should be avoided.
Let us start with police numbers. Total police strength peaked in 1993 at 128,000 and is now around 124,000. There had been a huge increase during the Thatcher years: a rise of some 17,000 by 1987 when I retired from government—although I was not at the Home Office—then a fall during the Major years. Between the Thatcher victory of 1979 and the defeat of the government in 1997, total numbers rose by 16,000. Numbers were rising again towards the end of the Major years. Then there was a sustained sharp fall through the Blair years until the final half of the year 2000–01, which showed an increase of 444. Overall, police numbers have fallen by 2,500 and, since May 1997, the Special Constabulary has been reduced by 6,000.
Of course we can all pick and choose particular dates and numbers, but I think that I have given a fair summary of what has happened under the three administrations. We are told that numbers will now continue to increase, although the Prime Minister's
694
famous promise of 5,000 extra police by the time of the general election has now been completely withdrawn in favour of the promise made by the Minister of State, Mr Clarke, that by March 2002, with a fair wind and on a good day and a little luck, numbers will have moved back to the levels of March 1997.
Overall numbers, effective strength, wastage rates, sickness rates and morale are all clearly interlinked. Events in Northern Ireland and the Patten report have devastated morale in the RUC. I suspect that we shall hear more of that shortly. Morale in the Metropolitan Police in particular is extremely low. As a London dogwalker, I encounter and talk to police officers every day. An alarmingly large proportion of experienced and senior constables have told me that they are working out time and staying out of trouble until they can retire. Furthermore, many younger officers are looking to transfer to less stressful police forces.
Low morale breeds high sickness rates. That puts more pressure on those remaining at work, which in turn increases sickness. Quite properly, the rules on sickness and early retirement on grounds of ill health have been tightened in recent times. But in some cases they have been over-tightened and officers are pressurised to continue at work when they should be on sick leave.
I need hardly make the point that the Macpherson report has had a disastrous effect on morale in the Metropolitan force. The supine acceptance by senior officers of a quite disgraceful slander against the men for whom they are responsible has made matters much worse. In passing, I might add that the existence in Scotland Yard of what I am told is called the Lawrence steering group does not help. I could understand a steering group on the Macpherson report, but the existence of a Lawrence steering group raises the issue of whether there should be a PC Blakelock, or a Damilola Taylor or an Anna Climbie group. Should their relatives not receive the same consideration as those of Mr Lawrence?
I would not defend much of the Sheehy report, least of all the decision on the Metropolitan Police housing allowance. I welcome the decision made by this Government that a metropolitan allowance of £6,000 a year is to be paid, although of course that merely exacerbates the problems in the Home Counties forces around London.
The Minister will, I am sure, make the most of the recent increase in recruits. I hope that he will say something about their quality. Is it correct that a criminal record is no longer necessarily a disqualification? Have physical standards been maintained, and what is the rate of wastage in training? I am told that there has been a considerable increase in the extent of the practice known as "back classing" on the 18-week training course at Hendon; that is, where recruits cannot reach the standard, they are put back in the course to try again. Is that so? If it is so, is it because the standard of the instructors or that of the trainees has fallen?
Officers also complain about the extent of paperwork. It is claimed that an officer who makes an arrest at the beginning of a shift is effectively hors de combat for the remainder, incarcerated in the police station, entangled in paperwork. Is that necessary?
What will be the effect of the wider-scope fixed penalty notices envisaged in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill? The Council for Civil Liberties has expressed concern over the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. But if a police officer has to report and form-fill for each notice issued to the standard required to arrest and charge an alleged offender, he will not issue many notices in a day. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he expects the police workload to be increased or decreased by these proposals.
Another cause of concern, I am told, is the poor performance, insecurity and unreliability of police radios. My understanding is that the new TETRA digital system currently on trial continues to have problems. I am told that there is a health and safety issue to be resolved; that because it causes interference with other equipment it cannot be used near hospitals or police headquarters; and even that it may adversely affect speed cameras on motorways—not, to my mind, a grave disadvantage. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with these matters before the close of the debate.
We have a police force not only under strength and demoralised, but one facing an increasing workload. Some of that workload arises from our lawyer-driven compensation culture in which we see compensation claims from citizens who are dissatisfied with the inability of the police to arrest and charge those alleged to have done them injury. Those same lawyers may have their part in making it much more difficult for the police to identify and arrest those who have committed crimes. The net effect is to swamp the police with paperwork and to reduce the time and the effectiveness of their work in catching wrongdoers. Even when criminals are caught, convicted and sentenced, the Home Secretary seems to let them out rather early in order to re-offend.
Increasing crime and increasing awareness of crime are also adding to the police burden. In 1993–94, the earliest year for which I can find figures, there were 4.5 million 999 calls. By 1999–2000 that had risen to 9.5 million. While the recent slight fall in recorded crime is welcome, it remains at a high level, and violent crime is still increasing. Soft sentences and early releases are no doubt factors in this, but to what do the Government attribute the rise and who does it most affect? My impression is that the victims are principally those who live in our third world urban areas.
Perhaps here I may take up with the Minister a matter which continues to puzzle me. In June last year I tabled a couple of Written Questions concerning the ethnicity of the victims and perpetrators of racially-motivated crime in the Metropolitan area. I was very surprised to receive an answer from the Minister which told me that information on the ethnicity of victims
696
and perpetrators of racially-motivated crime was not kept. The Minister looks surprised. So was I. But when I subsequently saw the figures published in the Daily Telegraph, I wrote to him and asked why they had not been available in answer to my Question. He told me that the information I had read in the Daily Telegraph came from Scotland Yard figures. Does not the Home Secretary, as the police authority, ask what is going on and what figures it has? Is that not extraordinary? Could officials have prepared an Answer for the unfortunate Minister to sign on the basis of not telling him that the figures were available in Scotland Yard, even if they were not on the file in his office? I find that not only extraordinary but quite outrageous. I hope that the Minister will do something to ensure that nothing of that kind ever happens again.
As noble Lords will know, violent crime rose in the 12 months to last September by some 8 per cent, despite a slight fall in sexual offences. Assaults on constables rose by 12 per cent to 27,000 out of a total of 588,000 offences. That is not much encouragement to recruitment. Even the slight fall in sexual offences is slightly suspect in that there was a fall recorded of 38 per cent in offences of gross indecency between males. That would be very welcome if it actually happened, but I rather doubt it did. There was a record fall in the practice of buggery of 22 per cent. Rape, on the other hand, edged up by 3 per cent. I wonder whether those figures can all be correct.
Perhaps I may end with a verdict on these matters—not mine, which might be thought by some to have some bias, but that of the people as a whole as measured recently by MORI. Asked about the level of crime in their areas since May 1997, 17 per cent of respondents said it had got better, 36 per cent said it had got worse, 44 per cent said it was unchanged. On standards of policing, the verdict was similar: 16 per cent better, 33 per cent worse, 46 per cent the same. As to the number of police on the beat, 9 per cent thought there were more, 49 per cent thought there were less and 36 per cent thought things were unchanged.
It is worth noting that 20 years ago 70 per cent were satisfied and 25 per cent dissatisfied with the way their locality was policed, a plus rating of 45 per cent. In February 1999, the figures were 70 per cent satisfied and 22 per cent dissatisfied, a positive rating of 48 per cent. The Minister has a slight smile. I do not think he should have because as we go on we find that, as the Government's policies have begun to bite, the mood has changed. Now, fewer than 45 per cent are satisfied and 50 per cent are dissatisfied, a negative rating, for the first time, of more than 5 per cent.
How do Ministers explain this? Have the public become—what is the expression this week?—"detached" from reality? Are they having, like Ministers, "moments of madness"? Does Mr Straw think that the public at large have a collective inability to remember or recognise what is going on? Is there "something strange going on" in the collective head of the public? Or will the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, own up like a man and say, "Yes, this Government have brought about a crisis of confidence in the ability of the

697
police to combat violent crime in particular"—that they have, indeed, failed to preserve the Queen's peace? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on choosing such an important subject for today's debate. As he suggested, it is very close to the top of people's concerns and fears. As to the point that he made towards the end of his speech about the surveys of people's satisfaction with policing, it will be of interest that the greatest satisfaction was achieved during the Home Secretaryship of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on the debilitating effect of the compensation culture. I do not demur at all on that.
The wording on the Order Paper states that the debate is to call attention to police numbers, morale and the level of violent crime, as though they are all connected. In my small contribution I shall attempt to prove that this is not necessarily so.
Dealing, first, with police numbers, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know that the setting of establishment figures by the Home Office was abandoned by the previous government. Presumably, that policy was supported by the noble Lord. It was placed in the gift of individual chief constables. It follows that if some chief constables decide that money is better spent on new technology, air support or civilian support, there is precious little that Ministers can do about it.
There may well be a case for maintaining centrally a minimum "ground cover" figure, as we used to call it, for every force before siphoning off officers or cash for specialist departments, squads or national agencies. It is a matter that my noble friend the Minister may wish to consider in the light of my following comments.
The Motion implies that "more police on the beat" means less reported crime. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, noted that that is not necessarily true. Often, the opposite is true. The obvious truth is that, the easier it is made for members of the public to report crime, the more crime will be reported. It follows, therefore, that in order to reduce the crime statistics the trick is to make crime more difficult to report—one method is to have fewer police officers in contact with the public. I hope that I am illustrating the unreliability of the Home Office crime statistics and not suggesting a template for crime reduction!
That said, it is undeniable that the public get a sense of security from seeing the patrolling bobby, regardless of the effect on crime figures. The fear of crime is probably far greater than the reality. If we can reduce this fear by adding more foot patrols, any sensible government are right to underwrite such an increase. That is why I applaud the Government for ring-fencing funding for an extra 9,000 officers over and above the normal intake. I understand that these
698
recruits are now working through the training schools. The Minister may wish to give up-to-date figures in his response.
The difficulty in recruiting police officers is true of public services generally, not just the police service. I think there is no disagreement on either side about that. It is in a sense a measure of the Government's economic success because of a tightening in the employment market. It is universally accepted that a far more accurate measure of the volume of crime is the British Crime Survey, the latest edition of which was published on 17th October last year. It indicates clearly that in the two years between 1997 and 1999 the number of violent crimes fell by 4 per cent. Similarly, all crime fell by 10 per cent over the same period.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned assaults on police officers, which we all deplore. Police officers do suffer from assaults, and this has the effect of lowering morale. The apparent acceptance that the police, or indeed any other public servants, can be used as punch-bags cannot continue. I read recently that only 12 per cent of those convicted of assaulting police officers receive a custodial sentence. That is a disgrace, and the judiciary and magistracy should take note. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could give the most up-to-date figures for custodial sentences following assaults on the police.
Noble Lords opposite should be careful in highlighting crime. The record shows that crime doubled during the administration that they supported. In contrast, this is the first government for 50 years to finish their term with less crime than when they came to office. The noble Lord will rightly say that specific categories of crime have risen: I refer to robbery and the theft of goods from the person. It is common ground between us that this area must be targeted and tackled. Part of the rise is accounted for by a sensible change in the counting rules. However, a great deal of such crime is attributable to the mugging of youngsters by other youngsters, usually for items such as mobile phones, which are almost becoming fashion accessories.
The Home Secretary was right, therefore, to call in the phone manufacturers to explore means of reducing such crime by making phones worthless to anyone other than the owner—in a similar way, the targeting of motor manufacturers reduced car crime. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would have expected nothing less.
I turn now to the important subject of police morale. Morale in any organisation can be affected by several factors. Remuneration, conditions of service, management style and complaints against the police are the obvious important factors. I shall deal with them briefly.
It was the previous government who removed the police housing allowance, in 1993—identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as the date when recruiting figures began to deteriorate. That had an immediate effect on recruiting and morale, and the service has never recovered. It was the previous government who removed overtime for the ranks of inspectors.

699
Consequently, senior investigating officers—officers working in excess of 60 hours a week, often heading murder inquiries—are taking home less than the junior officers working for them. To quote this week's Police Review,
"Inspectors in charge of up to 14 cases each are becoming human wrecks!"
It is becoming virtually impossible to find applicants for this demanding work. This lowering of morale was again caused by the Sheehy-type savings imposed by the previous administration supported by noble Lords opposite.
It was the previous government who abolished the rank of chief superintendent, thereby weakening the ability of chief constables to manage huge divisions, some larger than small police forces. Sense has prevailed, and the rank of chief superintendent is being brought back by the present Government.
The complaints system is not working. For some time, the staff associations have argued for the independent investigation of complaints. We have had, for example, the Lancet inquiry in Cleveland (of Ray Mallon fame) which has gone on for over four years, with many, including Mr Mallon, being suspended for over three years. The cost to the ratepayers of Cleveland is estimated to be in the region of £5 million to £7 million.
In 1996, the Police Superintendents' Association, of which I was then president, discussed reforms with the previous government and the Police Complaints Authority. Unfortunately, our pleas fell on deaf ears. The present Government are reforming the police complaints system.
In conclusion, as the Lancet inquiry has been completed, will my noble friend the Minister give the House some idea of when the Crown Prosecution Service will put the officers being investigated, the remainder of the force and the people of Cleveland out of their misery and announce the final decisions in the inquiry? Mr Mallon has already been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing and this sorry mess needs concluding.
I think it is evident that this Government need no lessons in police funding, management or reform from noble Lords opposite.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for providing this opportunity. Needless to say, I may not agree with many of the things he has said.
Law and order repeatedly surfaces as a key issue that concerns the community. It is no secret that it will continue to remain higher on the agenda in readiness for the next general election. I see nothing wrong in that, provided that we do not use the police and policing issues as a political football.
700
Until recently, there was a substantial and steady fall in police strength. The fall in numbers, which began under the previous Conservative government, has accelerated under the present Government. The slogan,
"Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime",
has an ingredient missing: those responsible for dealing with crime—that is, our police officers—are thin on the ground. The fall in the number of officers since 1997 is very serious indeed. Even now, there is serious concern about whether we shall be able to replace the officers lost since then. Of course, we welcome the recent recruitment drive, which looks promising. Let us hope that the Government will never again contemplate sticking to the spending plans—as they did during their first three years in office—which brought about the serious decline in police numbers.
There is no guarantee that the increase in police numbers will reduce serious crime. We need to probe much deeper into why our society, particularly our young people, have scant regard for the law. We need to probe more deeply into why, despite repeated criminal justice legislation and a record number of new laws to tackle crime, we have failed to tackle the increase in serious crime. An increase in police numbers alone would not solve our problems. The Government should have realised the folly of restricting their spending on police recruitment. No one has ever argued that crime reduction is assisted by a reduction in police numbers.
There are two reasons for the decline in police numbers. The first, undoubtedly, is the level of funding. The second is recruitment and retention. We can add to this the unfunded police pension scheme and the significant cost of new technology to keep pace with the sophisticated and international nature of crime.
The Government's own figures show that, after the proportion of police funding which is allocated to meet pension requirements is taken into account, in 1997–98 14 forces, in 1998–99 16 forces and in 1999–2000 15 forces had a cut in funding in real terms. The issue of pensions will not go away. It is time for us to know something about the Government's thinking on the subject.
Of course, there is some truth in the saying that fear of crime is greater than crime itself. It does not help the situation when all the evidence points to the declining public confidence in fighting crime, and the police being held responsible for what, ultimately, is the responsibility of the politicians. Ask any citizen and the complaint is that policemen are simply not visible enough in our communities and that the police do not even have the resources to respond to all the important demands made on them. Certain crimes no longer feature as important to the police, and yet they have a very profound effect on victims. Those of us who have items stolen from our cars can vouch for that statement.
Simply blaming the police service is not an answer. Talk to any police officer and you can see his or her frustration. Police officers care about public concerns

701
and they want to be the reassuring presence on our streets. We were repeatedly told that the amount of unnecessary paper work would be cut down and that that would release more officers on to the beat. However, this does not seem to have happened. Can the Minister say why not?
The history of law and order over the past two decades is so telling. Of course, the Conservative government could claim falls in recorded crime in the later years of their administration, but recorded crime was still 81 per cent higher in 1997 than in 1979. Violent crime rose every year between 1979 and 1997. Over this time, there was a 168 per cent rise, and the percentage is now rising again. Against this, the number of convictions in courts has fallen. I am referring not only to the proportion of crime leading to a conviction—the conviction rate fell—but also to the fact that the absolute number of convictions also fell. Whereas there were nearly 1.9 million convictions in 1979, there were 1.4 million in 1996. Crime nearly doubled during this time, but the number of criminals brought to account in the courts fell by 20 per cent. In 1985, there was a conviction for every eight crimes; in 1997, there was only one conviction for every 14 crimes.
The simplistic answer of creating more criminal offences has hardly helped. Is it not time for us to allow our criminal justice system to bed down before embarking on future laws? Should we not look to prevent offending in the first place?
Police morale is undoubtedly a real issue in many parts of the country. Genuine problems of numbers, recruitment and conditions also contribute to poor morale.
Perhaps I may congratulate the Home Secretary who set up the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—the request for which was, at one time, refused by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary. However, it is important to resist the dangerous argument that the reforms instituted by the police service following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry are an important factor in denting police morale. In fact, I cannot recollect working in any organisation in my life where morale has ever been high. It is particularly specious and inaccurate to suggest, as some have done, that police officers have become so afraid to stop and search black suspects that this has produced an increase in street robbery.
The figures published earlier this month under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 show that there has in fact been a larger fall in stop and searches of white people than of black people, and that black people are still five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. This is hardly compatible with the image of a police service paralysed by political correctness. The figures also show a larger fall in those types of crime for which arrests commonly follow stop and search than for those, like robbery, which stop and search rarely uncovers. Many of the arrests that follow stop and search are for drug offences, and the number of recorded drugs offences has recently fallen significantly. Far fewer arrests for robbery result from
702
stop and search, yet the robbery statistics have risen sharply. This suggests that there is little relation between the trends in the use of stop and search and the trends in crime rates. Stop and search may sometimes be necessary, but, frankly, it is overrated as a tool for reducing crime.
The results of recent pilot experiments in some parts of the Metropolitan Police district in making a more targeted use of stop and search are encouraging. These have reduced the overall number of stop and searches, reduced the racial disproportion in its use and, at the same time, an increased proportion of stop and searches have resulted in an arrest. So a better-targeted use of these powers has had more effective results. We need to build on the results of these experiments, and not return to the pre-Lawrence inquiry practices, which did so much damage to the confidence in the police service of minority ethnic communities.
We also need to question the peculiar argument that the racial disproportion in the use of stop and search can be justified because there are proportionately more black people on the streets in the areas concerned. Some senior police officers have started talking about the population "available to be searched". What is this supposed to mean? The fact that people are "available" does not mean that you have to search them. In order to justify a fivefold disproportion in the use of these powers, we would need to show not just that black people were five times more likely to be on the streets but that they were five times more likely to be on the streets and up to no good. Does anyone seriously argue that black people are five times more likely to commit crimes than white people? No statistics have effectively demonstrated that fact.
Let us stop looking at specious arguments of this kind that can only fuel racism, and look instead at some more valid reasons for poor police morale. One such reason is the tendency of many people to blame the police unfairly for high crime rates when these are in fact due to a range of social factors outside the direct control of the police. If we seriously want to bring down crime rates, we need a comprehensive strategy to tackle the root causes, involving all government departments as well as statutory and voluntary agencies. This means providing more support for families under stress. Research shows that effective family support programmes can pay for themselves five times over by reducing the rate of family break-up and delinquency by children of those families.
It also means tackling the problem of truancy and school exclusion, because research shows that persistent truants commit three times as many offences as children who attend school regularly. It means working to ensure that there are accessible work and training opportunities for the most disadvantaged, because young offenders commit three times as many offences when they are out of work as when they are employed. It means providing youth facilities and sporting activities for young people in disadvantaged high-crime-rate areas. Research into intensive youth activity programmes run by organisations like

703
NACRO (my own organisation) and Crime Concern shows that they can reduce different types of youth crime locally by between 30 and 75 per cent.
It means tackling problems of drug and alcohol abuse, because drug addicts who continue with their drug habit commit five times more crimes subsequently than those who enter treatment programmes. It also means working to resettle offenders on release from prison. Prisoners released homeless are two-and-a-half times more likely to reoffend than comparable offenders who have access to stable accommodation. Unemployed former prisoners are twice as likely to reoffend as those who get and keep a job.
In short, policing has a vital role to play in preventing and reducing crime; and where the police service has genuine grievances, these must be addressed. But, ultimately, a determined attack on the causes of crime will do far more to affect crime rates than the police service could ever hope to achieve on its own.
Last week I asked the Minister whether he would consider establishing a Royal Commission on policing to address the many and varied issues facing the police. This is also called for by the Police Federation. The Minister seems to have brushed that aside. Of course we discuss policing issues on a piecemeal basis but Parliament has failed to take a comprehensive look at policing. Is it not time that we took a more fundamental look at the police and at policing issues? Is it not time that we developed a much more effective strategy on crime prevention? Is it not time that we gave support and encouragement to the thin blue dividing line which makes a difference between democracy and chaos?
That requires valuing the independence of our police. We must not make them a political football. The public's consent to policing will be eroded if we fail to give a lead.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am sure we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for giving us this opportunity to debate vitally important linked issues which are of great concern to the law-abiding citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed and thoughtful analysis.
I declare an interest as a council tax payer resident in London Monday to Friday. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have been dismayed by the destruction of police morale throughout the United Kingdom and the consequent increase in violent crime. Despite what has been said by others, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is accurate in linking the two matters.
As a Londoner I offer two examples, one pre-Macpherson and the other post-Macpherson. Four years ago I encountered a young off-duty sergeant of the Metropolitan Police. After he had described his initial ambitions career wise, he began to recount how he became disillusioned and how his enthusiasm had been blunted by what he regarded as unnecessary
704
obstructions. I shall never forget his words as we parted. He said, "When I accompany two of my constables on patrol and we see a crime being committed, we are tempted to look the other way and thus avoid the likelihood of ending up in the dock instead of the criminal".
The other example concerns a rather more personal experience at a London Underground station Two sturdy, well built young ladies rampaged across the concourse screaming, laughing and hurling abuse at anyone within earshot. The first one shoulder charged an elderly lady immediately in front of me knocking her and her pathetic grocery bag to the floor. The second gave me the same treatment. I suppose that I should have been flattered by that. The two then joined forces and proceeded to charge the ticket collector who not unnaturally asked to see their tickets which they did not have. They butted him to the floor and charged through the now open gate on to the platforms.
A few good samaritans—I suspect that two or three of them were army officers in civilian clothes—offered their assistance to the rest of us and then went over in my presence, as one of the aggrieved parties, to sympathise with the ticket collector who was just recovering. They were prepared to offer their names and addresses to assist him in putting forward a claim. He declined their offer on the ground that some weeks previously one of his colleagues resisted the same two well built young ladies, was beaten up, complained and two weeks later was accused and found guilty of racism, and lost his job. Delicacy prevents me from mentioning the role of the Metropolitan Police in this context. That incident, of course, occurred post-Macpherson.
Yesterday your Lordships debated the Private Security Industry Bill. Today's debate is linked to the word "industry": the discipline industry, the inquiry industry and the complaints industry. The police always find themselves in the front line of attacks from all such bodies. By the nature of things the police are always on the defensive.
Noble Lords will remember that last year they voted through the Police (Northern Ireland) Act which included a provision for a police ombudsman—who now happens to be an ombudswoman; I do not complain about that—in place of what had been the independent commission for police complaints. The recent former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained that under the 1998 Act he had decided on a prescribed period for retrospective investigation. However, under the 2000 Act the retrospective period was two years for the first year of life of the new police service and one year for its second year of life.
Since then terrorist bodies have united—there are many of them in Northern Ireland of both shades—and are now pressing for retrospective investigation of many years (as far back as seven years) of complaints which they have unearthed, although all such complaints had been investigated by independent commissions and even in the courts.
In short, unless the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland adheres firmly to the stated intention of his predecessor, the new police service will be held

705
responsible by terrorists (not by the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland) for allegations—they are no more than allegations—made against the Royal Ulster Constabulary which were proved groundless by those independent bodies over seven to 10 years.
I understand that terrorists have already supplied the new ombudswoman with over 300 complaints before the new police body takes over with the intention, obviously, of clogging up the system. We can rest assured that that virus-that industry, as I call it—will soon spread to Britain. We would all be wise to heed early warnings.
While there may be disagreement over police numbers in England, there can be no quarrel over numbers in Northern Ireland. The unholy alliance between the Patten report and the Northern Ireland Office had the intended effect of slashing police numbers through pressure, incitement and destruction of morale, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, forecast, while the cream of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is as a result being lost. It is worth noting that those officers rejected by Patten on purely sectarian grounds are now being snapped up by constabularies such as Lothian and Borders, Suffolk, Tayside, Sussex, Strathclyde and Manchester. What is undoubtedly Ulster's loss will be Britain's gain.
When the police Bill was being processed by your Lordships' House last year, it was intended—noble Lords will remember the figures—that hundreds of police officers who were forced to leave would be replaced by Roman Catholic applicants to meet the 50:50 requirement. None of us, least of all myself—I was educated at a Roman Catholic school and, therefore, under the new guidelines would qualify as a Roman Catholic recruit if I did not have a sagging face and grey hair—made complaint of that. I supported it as a target and not a quota. It gives me no pleasure to report that what was made a quota is not working.
I shared your Lordships' hope and expectation that the 50:50 figure would be achieved voluntarily through co-operation with republicans, nationalists and, most of all, the Church. However, it is most regrettable that all three have in recent weeks publicly refused to encourage young Roman Catholics to enlist in the new force. It is heartbreaking to note that the excuse used to justify the refusal to advise young Catholics to join the force is that demilitarisation has not been achieved to the satisfaction of terrorists, nationalists and, very regrettably, the Church.
All three have explained exactly what they mean by "demilitarisation". It means the removal of all safeguards for law-abiding citizens—that is, the removal of all protection before all terrorist capacity to murder is demolished; no recommittal of the Army, as was necessary last year in the Protestant Shankill Road where civil war was raging; no more intelligence gathering which might abort a terrorist atrocity; no frontier surveillance which might hamper the Real
706
IRA or the Continuity IRA in murderous attacks like the Omagh bomb; and no security force patrol or checkpoints which might impede the racketeering and drug-trafficking now carried out on a large scale by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries.
Some noble Lords may ask why they are permitted to carry out those activities in addition to increased murder by Protestant and republican terrorists. The answer was given at a parliamentary press briefing last Tuesday by a Northern Ireland Office spokesman. To the question, "Why do you not regard them now as terrorists who have broken the ceasefire?", the answer was, "That is simply paramilitary housekeeping. We will not be concerned as long as it does not cross the sectarian divide". Some hope for the future, my Lords!
The last requirement for demilitarisation—it is an extremely serious one—is the demolition of the watchtowers on the South Armagh frontier. I fear very much that chiefs of staff have been broken under political pressure to approve the removal of two of those towers. That may seem small beer, but military men know only too well that if one removes two links in an intelligence-gathering chain, as these towers are—they are not offensive but for intelligence gathering and surveillance—the entire structure becomes ineffective. Taking away two out of six of those towers will horrify any military man: it creates dead ground between all six which terrorists can exploit at will.
I plead with the authorities even at this late stage to think again on that issue and to face the fact that the watch-towers have the intended effect of deterring terrorism; otherwise why would terrorists be concentrating on their removal? Surely the Army cannot welcome the removal of what are inoffensive structures. With the Army now at full stretch with commitments in many parts of the world, it will have serious difficulty in supplying new formations to replace the watch-towers with foot patrols.
The sad part is this. Do we want to commit ground forces again in an area where casualties will be inevitable on that South Armagh frontier which is tailor-made for snipers? It has proved to be so in the past. I beg those who share a responsibility, at whatever level, for ensuring that loss of life is not again permitted, to please think again on that crucial decision.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we move to the Statement, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Lockerbie Bombing
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement of Her Majesty's Government on the Lockerbie bombing

707
which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Almost two years ago, I announced that we had secured the agreement of the Libyan Government to the surrender of the two men charged with the Lockerbie bombing. That agreement brought an end to almost a decade of diplomatic stalemate. It was made possible by a unique legal innovation—a trial before Scottish judges under Scots law in a third country.
"I want to record our gratitude to the Government of the Netherlands and to their local authorities for their ready and full co-operation in making available the excellent facilities at Camp Zeist. Their co-operation has confirmed the reputation of the Netherlands as a seat of international justice. I have today written to the Dutch Foreign Minister formally recording our thanks.
"The whole House will wish to express its appreciation of the work of the police in what has been one of the longest and largest investigations in British history. Dumfries and Galloway police and the other police forces who co-operated in the inquiry are entitled to credit for the evidence brought before the court.
"The trial has been open and its proceedings have been punctilious. It is widely agreed that it has proved the fair trial which we promised.
"The panel of Scottish judges has now returned their verdict. They unanimously found guilty Mr A1 Megrahi, an official of the Libyan Intelligence Service. They acquitted Mr Fhimah.
"We accept the verdicts of the court. Mr A1 Megrahi is reported to intend to appeal. The House will understand that in the circumstances I will not comment on the substance of the legal arguments.
"However, the House will wish to know what international action the Government intend to take in the light of these verdicts.
"The initiative to hold the trial at Camp Zeist was taken by Britain and secured by agreement with the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Libya. But we made those arrangements in accordance with the resolution of a UN Security Council, which is binding on all member states.
"Libya has complied with some of the requirements of the Security Council, such as handing over the two suspects. In the light of the guilty verdict, we expect the Libyan Government to fulfil the remaining requirements. We therefore require Libya to accept responsibility for the act of its official who has been convicted. We also require Libya to pay compensation to the victims of the relatives.
"Before coming to the House this afternoon, I spoke by telephone to Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. We are both clear that Libya must now fulfil the requirements of the Security Council in full. We both committed our
708
Governments to close co-operation to achieve those common objectives. I will be able to continue that consultation with Colin Powell when I meet him in Washington next week.
"It is also in Libya's own interests to be seen to cooperate fully with the Security Council. In the light of the conviction of one of their senior intelligence officials, Libya's leaders need to take every opportunity to prove to the international community that they have definitively renounced terrorism and will abide by international law.
"The Lockerbie bombing stands among the most brutal acts of mass murder. The community of Lockerbie suffered a sudden and devastating tragedy. I spoke after the verdicts to my honourable friend the Member for Dumfries, who is today with the local people, who have borne their tragedy with great dignity.
"Every passenger and crew member of PanAm 103 was killed. That night, more than 400 parents lost a child, 76 women and men lost husbands or wives and seven children lost both parents. Nothing can repair the loss of those who were murdered that night or remove the grief of their relatives, but today, at last, those relatives know that in a fair trial before an open court, justice has been done."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Foreign Secretary's Statement. The Lockerbie bombing was, without doubt, a monstrous crime against humanity. We fully endorse the sympathy expressed for all the relatives, whose grief is unending. The trial and the verdict do not alter anything in that respect.
Nevertheless, it was a fair and well organised trial. It has produced a verdict, although there is an appeal. We also endorse the gratitude expressed to the organisers of a remarkable juridical event—a first in history—and to those who, over the years, helped to break the deadlock, including Nelson Mandela, among others, who enabled a reluctant Libya to yield up the two gentlemen who were charged, one of whom has been found guilty.
I have some questions about where we go from here. First, is it correct that the only basis for appeal under Scottish law, under which the trial was conducted, is a miscarriage of justice, or are there other possible grounds for appeal? Secondly, what is the Government's view about future inquiries? It is obvious that other people were involved in that horror. It could not all have been done by one guilty person. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the background to the horror and how it came about. At the time, the Americans said that it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya, which in turn was in retaliation for the killing of US sergeants in a night club in Berlin. That is a long trail that needs further examination. The background events were not covered in the trial.

709
Thirdly, presumably there is no question of lifting the sanctions on Libya until there has been some further movement and changes. Does that apply to the other sanctions on Libya, which pre-date the Lockerbie horror and trial? I understand that Colin Powell wants those sanctions to stay in place. Do we agree?
Fourthly, was Al Megrahi an officially recognised member of the Libyan intelligence service? The Statement seems to accept that he was. I think that it is clear. If so, the state of Libya carries enormous responsibility and should be held to account. It should be more than just a question of compensation for victims. What other action will be considered against a state whose henchman, apparently with the authority of that state, has committed one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in modern times?
Can we assume that there is no question yet of diplomatic relations being restored with Libya? There have been suggestions in the press that that might be under consideration. Is it more than a rumour that, if diplomatic relations were restored, the Libyans would want to move back to their quarters in St James's Square, where they murdered Yvonne Fletcher some years ago—something that we are all reminded of whenever we walk past that tragic spot?
Answers to those questions would be helpful. There has been a trial and a verdict. Despite the appeal, that shows that the issue has not been forgotten. Tireless diplomacy and effort by many people have brought us to this point, but I suspect that there is some way to go.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, express my deep gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place. The outcome vindicates the capacity of the international community for an astonishing level of co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to the intervention of President Mandela, as he then was, in helping to bring the situation about. Kofi Annan of the United Nations and, I understand, the Organisation of African Unity, also helped.
I also echo the tribute paid by both Front Benches to the Netherlands Government. As the co-chairman of the Anglo-Dutch Society, I believe that the outcome vindicates the commitment that the Netherlands Government have always made to the international rule of law.
Finally on that point, great credit should be given to the Scottish police and judges. Perhaps this is a first indication that the concept of an international criminal court may be much more viable than some people have supposed. If so, it is a great credit to Scotland. This shows that the international community can get together to an astonishing extent when faced with crimes against humanity of the enormity of the Lockerbie tragedy.
710
The leading representative of the victims, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the explosion and who has shown the extraordinary grace and courage that have characterised the victims in Scotland and outside, said today that,
"a majestic process is in motion".
That is a great credit to the Scottish judiciary.
I have a couple of questions. Can the leader of Libya now be persuaded to admit his country's involvement? I very much share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the fact that the gentleman who has been condemned was an official of the Libyan intelligence agency raises large questions about who authorised his intervention. That link must be explored.
Compensation is another crucial issue. Perhaps most important of all is whether the Libyan Government will now agree to renounce terrorist activities and return to the rule of international law, which, were it to happen, might lay the basis for the possible future lifting of sanctions.
The Prime Minister is reported to have supported a full and open inquiry. Will the Government agree to that? There are very difficult questions to be addressed. The evidence of Mr Giaka, the CIA double agent, collapsed in court under cross-examination. Nevertheless, clearly he played an important role in the whole Lockerbie story. There is the question of why some FBI families cancelled their bookings at the last minute on the flight from Heathrow to New York. There is the question of the role of Mr Edwin Bollier, the Swiss businessman, whose very delicate mechanisms were involved in the explosion of the bomb and who was alleged in court to have been a master of deception. Finally, there is the issue of whether others were involved who so far have not been identified by the procedure of the court.
All those matters lead me to the question about which I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us—that is, whether there can and will be an open inquiry. I ask that in the context of believing that it was absolutely right to pursue the criminal case first. It was right to deal first with the issue of the guilt or innocence of those identified as possible agents of the terrible actions. However, that now opens the door to the public or judicial inquiry, as the case may be, which the victims of this terrible tragedy have every right to demand.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I start by thanking both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their words of praise for everyone who brought about the trial. I join them in again expressing my enormous sympathy for those who were bereaved as a result of this dreadful mass murder. We are, indeed, grateful for the support of many people in bringing the trial to a proper conclusion.
I shall now try to deal with as many of the points raised as I can. If I miss any, I undertake to write to noble Lords and to place a copy of my letters in the Library. I am not absolutely certain about the point that the only basis for an appeal is a miscarriage of

711
justice. I shall require advice from Scottish legal experts and shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about that matter. If an appeal goes forward, it will be heard by five Scottish judges in Camp Zeist. As I said, I shall write to noble Lords regarding the details of what may or may not be the basis of such an appeal. At present, no one knows what grounds of appeal the lawyers for the convicted person will choose to follow.
With regard to the question of sanctions, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, it appears that the United States bilateral sanctions will remain in place. The UK has no bilateral sanctions against Libya. The European Union arms embargo stays in place because that is connected with missile technology and is therefore a completely different issue. UN sanctions against Libya were suspended in 1999 when the two accused were handed over for trial. Those sanctions were only suspended and will not be lifted until the UN is satisfied that the results of the US and UK discussions with Libya about fulfilling the requirements of the UN resolutions have progressed. Therefore, a decision will be taken in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked whether the Libyans would wish to return to their previous embassy premises in St James's Square. Obviously, if Libya were to open an embassy in this country, it would be a matter for that country to consider where that should be. However, I am sure that Libya would want to consider sensitivities in the United Kingdom in relation to their returning to an embassy in the square in which WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot and killed. I believe that Libya should take that into account.
I believe that we should await the outcome of the appeal before considering the question of a public inquiry. Over the years, many things have been said and written about this affair, and many theories have been voiced and put forward in the press. So far as concerns the evidence in the case, it is a matter for the Lord Advocate, not the Government, to decide whether any further prosecution or action should be pursued. However, we shall wait until the appeal process has been completed before considering the question of a public inquiry.
I believe that at present that is as much as I am able to provide in the way of detailed answers. I shall write to noble Lords if I have missed any of the points raised.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I, on behalf of many other noble Lords, echo the tributes paid to the families of those who lost their lives in the Lockerbie disaster. I also echo the tributes to the police and to those in the judicial system who have brought this trial to a conclusion—in so far as it has been drawn to a conclusion at present.
Given that we have known the verdict for less than five hours, I understand that it is difficult to comment on the wider questions of the case and to come to definite conclusions. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can clarify a point which may seem trivial but which, nevertheless, I consider to be important.
712
During the one o'clock news bulletin on the BBC today the whole issue was introduced by stating that one of the accused had been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years to be served before parole could be considered. Three minutes later, in introducing a discussion, the very same newscaster, reporter or commentator at the BBC said that the accused had been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. There is a huge difference between a life sentence with a minimum of 20 years before parole and an actual sentence of 20 years. I believe that people who perhaps do not follow these matters closely need to be assured that the BBC can report news items accurately. That affects people's judgment of how far justice has been achieved.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I did not hear the broadcast to which my noble friend refers. Again, everyone will agree with his words of sympathy for the relatives of those who were killed. With regard to the sentence, the position was very clear: it was stated to be mandatory life imprisonment for murder. Twenty years was specified as the minimum sentence that would be served. However, that is a matter for the judiciary.
Perhaps I should make clear a point which I dealt with earlier in relation to St James's Square. Perhaps inadvertently I gave the impression that at present we do not have diplomatic relations with Libya W e do. However, the question related to whether the Libyans intend to move into St James's Square. That is the matter with which I dealt. If I gave the wrong impression in relation to that matter, I apologise.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether Libya has offered 10 cooperate in investigating the death of Yvonne Fletcher?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we reached an agreement with Libya on that question and compensation was paid. That case, for better or worse, has been closed. That was why diplomatic relations were resumed with Libya. Although diplomatic relations were broken with Libya, they were not broken over Lockerbie. The breaking pre-dated that. We broke diplomatic relations with Libya because of the death of WPC Fletcher, and we resumed them only when the Libyans agreed to pay compensation and to take responsibility for her death.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, a moment ago, the Minister referred to closure—I believe that that was the word she used—in relation to the Yvonne Fletcher case on the payment of compensation. Although I am sure that all noble Lords understand her point, I hope that in relation to Yvonne Fletcher, whose family I knew, and the Lockerbie case., she accepts that although compensation may be paid, we must stress—I am sure that all noble Lords agree—that there is no way in which any compensation can represent any kind of justice for the horrors that were perpetrated.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely correct. I am sure that

713
we all agree with his comments. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place in the Statement that I repeated, nothing can repair the loss of those who were murdered. That is true of Yvonne Fletcher and of the Lockerbie victims.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I have a question about the possibility of appeal. First, the Minister said that that appeal would be heard by five judges, including the existing three judges. Does that imply that the procedure will be in accordance with Scottish law as that is normally applicable in criminal cases, or is there an international agreement relating to the case, such as that which was necessary to set up the court in the first instance? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give an indication of the length of time that is likely to elapse before an appeal is decided?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the appeal will be heard in front of five Scottish judges of appeal, and the procedure will be conducted entirely under Scottish law. There have been discussions about how long it will be before an appeal is heard and decided. I understand that the best estimate is between nine and 12 months.

The Police
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, against the background of the serious crime situation on this side of the Irish Sea, it was a useful and salutary reminder of the realities of the world in which we live that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, spoke of the nightmare—my fear is that it is a growing nightmare—in Northern Ireland.
Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tebbit for enabling us to debate this important matter today. It is appropriate for us to do so in light of a report by its political editor on the front page of The Times today stating that following yesterday's discussions on the Labour Party's election manifesto,
"Mr Blair has elevated crime … to equal importance with health, education and welfare reform".
The article contains the startling information:
"Yesterday's meeting was told that half of all crime in Britain is committed by about 100,000 people, and that the sentencing system will have to be changed radically to tackle them. Many had never been caught and others picked up a succession of minor sentences because the courts had little flexibility in dealing with them".
I want to make a few general observations about the society in which we live. It is a matter of great sadness that when I look back on my childhood, it was an entirely different world. My family lived on Chiswick Mall. In order to get there from central London, one travelled on the Underground to Stamford Brook and one walked for about 20 minutes from the station to
714
one's home. It never occurred to anyone in those days that there might be a risk in travelling home at night on the Underground or in taking such a walk. My family had no anxieties when I was a boy at Westminster under-school and at Westminster about letting me go anywhere in London at virtually any time of the day or night. I am afraid that that is not the case today.
My second observation arises from the fact that I celebrated the arrival of the millennium not in London—thank goodness I was not part of the queue for the Jubilee Line on the way to the Dome—but in the Mexican city of Guadalajara. In the preceding days, the churches had been packed. On the night of the millennium celebrations, vast crowds swarmed around the city, but I did not see a single policemen. Family members of all ages, from babies in prams to the very old, were present. So far as I could see, no one was drunk and I did not see anyone with a glass of beer. I cannot help reflecting on the fact that a very high proportion of the crime that occurs in this country appears to be alcohol related. I like a drink as much as anyone, but social considerations need to be taken into account with regard to the background to crime and the reasons for it. We should seriously consider education and family responsibility in that context. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
I never thought that I should advance the case for drinking Coca Cola but last month, when I travelled extensively on a private visit to Argentina and Chile, I was again struck by the extraordinary quantity of soft drinks consumed there and by the relatively small quantity of alcohol that is consumed in public. The relationship of crime to the consumption of alcohol deserves consideration.
I also want to make an observation on my personal attitude to the police. I have the highest admiration for the police force. There is a particular reason for that. During my time as a Minister, a bomb was placed in my Welsh home in the bedroom of my son. As a result, I was subject for some considerable time to security arrangements and the protection of the police. I made close friendships with many of them and grew to have the greatest admiration for all of those splendid public servants.
Even today, when my alarm goes off by mistake—I fear that that happens all too often—the police arrive with extraordinary speed and efficiency at my front door. However, many people in London find that if they report what appears to them to be a serious crime or burglary, they get very little attention. That is not because the police do not want to give them that attention but because of the pressure under which they work.
Although I intend to concentrate my remarks on what is happening in London, there are serious patterns of crime in the country. These days, it is unwise for one to have an antique sundial or piece of valuable stonework or sculpture in one's garden, because it will soon disappear and a transaction will take place shortly afterwards on the edge of a

715
motorway. That happened in my case although, I am glad to say, one piece was recovered. If furniture is stolen from a house in the country that is unoccupied for a short time, it will probably be put in a container and shipped out of the country through Southampton in about 24 hours. The whole business is efficiently organised. There are real risks and hazards in the countryside and in towns.
I want to discuss the pressures in towns and our responsibilities as citizens. It has already been pointed out in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, that the level of crime in some fields has gone down. Motor manufacturers have made considerable progress in making it more difficult for vehicles to be stolen. But, again, individuals can help. We can make sure that we have effective immobilisers or tracker systems and encourage recovery.
The Government have measures before Parliament at the moment which may make that situation even better. However, I was disturbed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, seemed to do what Ministers have done; that is, treat rather lightly the sharp rise in the theft of mobile phones. The implication is that it is nothing more than children bullying other children. I happen to think that the actions of children bullying other children should be treated seriously. In any case, it is not only children who steal mobile phones.
My wife and I were driving back from the Tate Modern one evening. As I pulled up at the traffic lights by the Old Vic, two young men attempted to mug a man on the pavement opposite and remove his mobile phone which he had been using as he walked along the pavement. I opened the window, shouted and jumped out of the car, as did the person in the car behind me. The two young men shot in opposite directions. When the police arrived 10 or 15 minutes later I could only give them a shadowy description of what the two offenders looked like.
As we looked after the victim, who had been hit and was badly shaken but had retained his mobile phone, I could not help but observe a young woman casually walking along the pavement opposite using her mobile phone. People should understand that if we walk around the darkened streets of London using a mobile phone, it is a good idea to stand where we can see what is happening so we do not become an obvious invitation to any young thief.
My point is that, as individuals, we too can help to reduce crime. I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie—a view expressed also by the Commissioner for London—that manufacturers should do more to reduce the attractiveness to thieves of the mobile phone. Measures could be taken which make them less attractive than they are at the present time and we are entitled to demand that they take them.
I turn to the question of police numbers. We heard from both sides of the House that all sorts of things can be done to adjust the statistics of crime; there is no disagreement on that. I regularly travel either by bus or car along the South Bank from Battersea to this
716
House. I frequently see yellow notice boards put up by the police asking for witnesses to crimes committed along that road. That indicates the hazards of living in our capital city, even in an area which is not regarded as being particularly high risk.
I can give a local indication of the reduction in police numbers. In Battersea we have an admirable Neighbourhood Watch scheme. For many years I received regular reports through my door from the police and from time to time attended local meetings. The police station from which the scheme is run is now a lot further away and the constables who run the scheme have to cover a vastly increased area. That means that not only are there fewer policemen on the street, but also that they find it more difficult to have the house-to-house and person-to-person contact which is so vital if a Neighbourhood Watch scheme is to work.
I am sure there is no argument but that the numbers of police in London have come down. The Prime Minister himself is concerned that they have fallen every year for seven years. They have certainly come down in Wandsworth and in Battersea. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said about how the numbers are set for the requirements of police in a specific area. I was informed this morning that, until last year, Battersea was considered to need 399 police. Even including a number of probationary trainees, the current number is 384. However, there has been a convenient 4 per cent drop in the requirement so everyone can say that the target is being met. Whether or not that is so, we clearly have fewer police and more crime.
There is undoubtedly a need for the Government to try to do something about that. I know they will say that they allocated substantial additional resources to the problem and that within the past six months there has been an improvement in recruiting numbers. But there is a long way to go. Careful consideration must be given to how we can help those who are recruited to find adequate housing and solve the other problems which inhibit recruitment.
I agree with those who believe that the Macpherson report did a great deal of damage. I am as strong as anyone in condemning racism in the police force and indeed anywhere else. But the report gave the impression that the entire police force was infected. That had an impact on morale and made it more difficult for the police to act effectively on the ground.
I conclude by saying that a serious problem exists. It is partly a question of the law and the police; but it is also a problem of social attitudes, education, family responsibility and the way we behave. We must address all parts of the problem. My noble friend Lord Tebbit was absolutely right. There are two primary responsibilities of the Government. One is to defend the citizen of the realm from outside attack and the other to defend the citizen from inside attack—robbery and violence; in other words, to defend the Queen's peace. The Queen's peace is not being effectively defended and that should be a matter that concerns everyone, whatever their political views.
4.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to take part in this debate and I speak—in reference to something he said in his speech—as a daily Fareham dog-walker.
By way of preliminary, I should like to place on record the high esteem in which I hold the work of the Hampshire Constabulary in its partnership work in the community, of which I shall speak later. I very much hope that the context of this debate from all sides of the House will be one of support and affirmation, even if it is not without criticism, for the work of our police officers whose service to society often goes unmarked. I add from these Benches to the tributes paid earlier to the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary.
Perhaps I may add at this point that it is a pleasure to have my friend and near neighbour, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, next to me. He is about to retire after serving in this House for 21 years. I am not alone in having benefited greatly from his wisdom in that office as a diocesan bishop.
I want to begin with a book that may be topical to at least some of our considerations this afternoon. I possess in my study a signed first edition of Robert Campell Moberly's book, Atonement and Personality. It is a classic work by an Oxford professor, published on 14th February 1901—it has almost reached its centenary. Partly Scottish by blood and read in both Scottish and English theology, Moberly entered and engaged in the debate at the end of the 19th century about "punishment as vindictiveness" over and against "punishment as rehabilitation". That debate will find a satirical echo in W.S. Gilbert's song in "The Mikado",
"To let the punishment fit the crime".
Responding to the debate, and in no way taking the view that punishment should not involve suffering, Moberly pictured Christ as the perfect penitent and drew on the twin aspects of justice and mercy as the foundations not only of a proper theology but also of a healthy society. The matter before us now, therefore, is not new or innovative; it simply points to a current phase in what is a long-running question about how we believe crime should be responded to and what support is given to those who carry out that task on society's behalf.
I want to make two points: first, on the prevention of crime as the responsibility of the whole community, and, secondly, on the vocational nature of being a police officer. I refer first to society's responsibility. It is clear that the fight against crime is a proper focus for any government. The introduction of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in another place on 18th January this year is a welcome signal of the intention to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to enhance public safety and good order.
However, I should like to draw attention to the broader backdrop of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which gave a priority to local partnerships and audits carried out by the public sector as well as business and
718
voluntary agencies. Over the past three years that has proved an effective model for establishing community safety partnerships, which have proved their worth in south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the area covered by the Portsmouth diocese. At the heart of that practice is the real acknowledgement that building safe communities and reducing crime is a shared responsibility among many agencies and communities as well as individuals. It is not simply the role of the police. Likewise, considerable resources have been channelled into those areas that are often blighted by crime. I welcome the involvement of the police in a number of local youth initiatives working alongside voluntary agency partners, such as the Children's Society in inner urban Portsmouth.
The point I make is that some seem to have confused the issue of the operational effectiveness of the police—over which there will be many armchair commentators far removed from the realities of policing a beat—with the fact that the responsibility for crime lies both with the individual who commits it as well as with the social causes which often underlie criminal behaviour. For that to be tackled properly, we need a frank and wide-ranging public debate which does not fall victim to the rhetoric of demonising either the perpetrators of crime or those charged with maintaining public order. Partnerships of the kind I have described offer effective and long-term solutions to the questions we now face.
Secondly, the question of the recruitment and retention of police officers is one which deserves careful attention rather than a knee-jerk reaction to headline figures. There are any number of factors behind that, but in particular I want to draw a comparison with the difficulty faced by the world of education in recruiting sufficient teachers. That difficulty is becoming acute in the area in which I live. Like the police, that is a profession I meet regularly as I go round my beat.
In both spheres a number of common elements come into play: first, a rapidly changing culture where the expectations and status afforded a generation ago do not hold; secondly, a move away from what might be broadly called a vocation to public service; and thirdly, a society which shuns personal responsibility and looks for others to carry it.
The police have to operate in a reactive public context which can at times focus on the vindictive nature of punishment rather than seeing the judicial process as part of a broad movement that includes the upholding of the law, appropriate forms of punishment and the rehabilitation of the offender. The riots in Paulsgrove last summer bear witness to that. We have to accept that we as a society have made these public vocations less attractive. Pay is an important feature, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for drawing attention to that in his speech. However, esteem also features large.
I do not and will not subscribe to the view that we can return to some kind of golden age of simple roles and simple solutions. Contemporary Britain is a complex culture, as it has always been. Some things

719
have got worse, but others have got better. Policing will be a challenging career. Over the past 30 years, all public bodies have had to respond to a wide range of changes in the law, whether that be in connection with sex discrimination, equal opportunities or the creation of a diverse and representative workforce. If we can step aside from opportunistic comments about political correctness—I am grateful to a number of noble Lords for mentioning that—I believe that the current challenges that we face will turn out to be assumed norms in the next decade.
Finally, I want to end with a gentle caution to those in our society and in public comment who bemoan the loss of moral, social and judicial authority. There is something superficially attractive about that assessment because it is clear cut and unambiguous. It can sometimes involve raising the issue of immigration in the context of law and order and can have recourse to the North American fashion for zero tolerance.
There is something deeply troubling for me as a bishop about the clarity and monochrome nature of such a vision. I am concerned, not because I do not want to support the maintenance of law and order; I clearly do—for nine years as a parish priest I was chaplain to Guildford Crown Court; and although that post was honorary, it involved work and commitment by me—but rather because I cannot subscribe to the two-dimensional society which in my view it can produce. From the carpenter's son, conceived outside marriage, born under an occupying regime, forced to seek exile and asylum in a foreign land; from the one branded a criminal in his time, and suffering a criminal's death, I find no support for such a golden age. But from the God who formed me and knew me in the womb, I hope to learn justice and mercy, and judgment with loving kindness for, if I may borrow the phrase from another faith, He is the compassionate, the merciful.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before I turn to the subject of the debate—we owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss it—I cannot resist referring to the disturbing point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, about the towers in South Armagh. I do not think we can expect the Minister to answer; he has no government responsibility for it. However, a story which is going round—as I am sure the noble Lord knows better than I—is that the military advice was against removing those towers; that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland accepted that advice and was overruled by the Prime Minister whose only concern was to keep the Good Friday agreement together. Perhaps the only hope that the noble Lord can have is that the military will submit fresh advice to the new Secretary of State. One must hope that the Prime Minister will then take the advice of that second Secretary of State.
One advantage of speaking in the privacy of your Lordships' Chamber is that one can make comments without much risk of them "filtering beyond the walls". I want to make one or two comments about the
720
Home Office in that context. If in the unlikely event I had ever been made a Home Office Minister, unless it was Home Secretary I would not have lasted six months. The Home Office would have contrived to persuade the Prime Minister to dismiss me because one of my objectives would have been to remove the smirk from the face of the Home Office. The smirk reveals the attitude which it takes towards and the way in which it treats Parliament.
The Minister looks surprised. My noble friend gave an example of a parliamentary Question which he asked and his treatment in respect of the Answer that he received. I hope that the Minister will reply to that specific point. I make no apology for repeating a point which I made last night when only four of us were in the Chamber—and those four are still here! On 28th October 1999, I tabled a Question for Written Answer. It asked Her Majesty's Government:
"Which statutory instruments giving powers of entry to private premises have come into force since May 1997".
To the Minister's shame—and of course I do not blame him—the Answer was:
"This information could only be collated at disproportionate cost".—[Official Report, 28/10/99: col. WA37.]
That shows two things: either the Home Office regards powers of entry supremely unimportant or it regards it as immensely impertinent that I should question such a matter. However, the Library, when I consulted it about that Answer, was able to say that the information would have been readily available on the LEXIS program of a computer. Therefore, I propose to table the Question again and I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to give me a reply.
There are many problems relating to the police but I want to deal with three. The first is public criticism. Sometimes the police take short cuts and I understand why they feel that they have to do so. Sometimes these short cuts result in a reversal of a trial verdict which then receives a great deal of publicity. That is had publicity for the police, which is regrettable. Whenever the police are tempted to take short cuts they may be undermining their future position.
The second problem relates to pay, which is better than it was. Your Lordships have probably seen the advertisements stating that someone joining the Metropolitan Police Force can, after 18 weeks of training, receive a salary of just over £25,000. The right reverend Prelate mentioned teachers who, in most circumstances, would receive a lower starting salary. I believe that the police deserve to earn that amount. In preparation for the debate, I visited Scotland Yard's police recruiting office in Victoria Street today where a constable gave me most encouraging news about the response to those advertisements. That is jolly good.
The third problem is a lack of discipline in the police. I agree with those people who said that the reports on Stephen Lawrence and so forth over-egged the situation and created the wrong atmosphere, but undoubtedly there was wrong doing. There is no question about that. I believe that discipline in the police has been inadequate and to some extent, although not currently, that goes to the top. I go back

721
to 1982 when, as your Lordships will remember, a man broke into the Queen's bedroom. In my opinion, the then Commissioner of Police, Sir David McNee, should have resigned. I say that not because he was directly responsible or to blame but because if he had resigned when something went seriously wrong under his command, his successor would have been in a more powerful position to exercise the authority and discipline necessary in the performance of that duty. A successor can say, "Look, the buck stops with me. I take the decisions". That point is worth bearing in mind.
In that context, I wonder whether the time has come to reassess the need for a management intake; what was called an "officer intake". That intake was abolished almost 50 years ago with the demise of the Hendon police college system. I know all the arguments against it and I know that there is opposition to it. However, curiously, the police are beginning to accept it because there are now fast tracks for graduates and the best people are now reaching the top quicker. One of its great advantages is that it separates management responsibility and thus provides a bulwark against corruption. Any organisation, particularly the police, is subject to corruption. Furthermore, in the light of devolution, perhaps we should consider the possibility of some element of a national police force at least for England. Perhaps we could have a national detective force.
Referring to problems is not on its own useful. So I should like also to suggest some solutions. First, a greater use could be made of special constables in many different roles. At one time, they were unpopular with the police but I believe that the Government are now keen on them. If I were a Minister, I would set up a specific action programme to increase and widen the use of special constables. If they were properly recruited, they could make a useful contribution in terms of police numbers.
Secondly, too many people who would make excellent jurors are excused jury service. Too many juries consist of riff-raff who are anti-police. The Minister looks horrified—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, from the noble Lord's contributions to previous debates, I thought that he was keen on juries. He now seems to be making an attack on them.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I totally support the concept of a jury; the concept of 12 good and true persons. However, I do not believe it is right that those whose previous behaviour shows them to be unsuited to be jurors, or likely to be unsuited, should nevertheless be jurors. I understand that the issue of juries will be dealt with in a later report and I hope that that dimension will be examined.
I turn to my main point. I do not believe that we are adequately using the opportunities provided by modern technology. My noble friend Lord Tebbit referred to the use of inadequate radios. That is a scandal. It is not as big a scandal as the failure of this
722
and the previous Government to provide the Army with an adequate radio system. We need an effective system and the technology which can provide it is available. There is almost a need for a Beaverbrook-and-Spitfires approach.
Secondly, the possibilities of DNA are continually expanding. Today I read about a case in America in which the accused was found guilty. It was stated that the odds against the DNA match being incorrect were greater than the number of people in the world at the present time. In other words, DNA is a valuable tool. I believe that the time has come to consider the possibility of all of us—and I am sure that we would be willing—having our DNA on record. Of course, that would have to be combined with an identity number of some kind. I am not talking necessarily of identity cards—they are more provocative—but of national identity numbers. I believe that that would make a real contribution.
Finally, as regards technology, I turn to the use of CCTV, which has advanced rapidly. Tapes are no longer used; the recordings are made on discs. Until a few months ago, a camera's tape had to be changed every three or four days and the slower and longer the tape was allowed to run the less good the picture. There is enormous scope now that CDs are available on which to record CCTV pictures. Sometimes overt cameras are a good deterrent, but the technology is now so advanced that they can also be covert.
The cost of installing and maintaining these cameras is so low in comparison with the cost of policing that in inner city areas where there is far too much crime, particularly street crime, CCTV would be a dramatic deterrent. I believe that in certain shopping areas CCTV has already been shown to have a dramatic effect on crime. It could be used a great deal more. Speaking for the rural interest, I believe that many parish councils, certainly my own, would welcome the provision of CCTV.
I recognise that some of the points I raise have implications for civil liberties. But one of the points about any pressure group is that it always overstates its case. Government must listen to pressure groups and carefully evaluate them. The job of government is to balance the interests and voices of the minority against those of the majority. If they make that judgment correctly, I for one shall support them.
5.1 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has initiated this very interesting debate. The debate has three main themes and yet there has been very little overlap. I should like to pick up one matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred. He said that each person should have an identity number. I point out that when a person is born, he or she is given a number by the health service. That does not infringe civil liberties at all. Perhaps that number could be used appropriately.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I referred to an identity number. It is the national health number, as opposed

723
to the national insurance number, which one receives at the age of 16. However, the noble Viscount is absolutely right that that is the number on which I would build.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Lord and I agree.
I am in contact with many officers in the Metropolitan Police and it is upon the Met (as it is usually called) that I base most of my contribution today. Currently, the Met is about 240 officers below the budgeted workforce target. That appears to be quite satisfactory until it is noted that the Commissioner needs—I am particular in using that word—2,500 more officers to police London with confidence.
Taking into account natural wastage, it is hoped that the Met will be about 100 officers below the target of 25,600 at the end of this financial year, but it is far short of the long-term target of 28,000. It is also necessary to take into account civilian staff who perform duties other than those performed by serving officers. About 900 civilians are needed to bring the Met up to the required strength. Major recruitment initiatives are under way and the policies to recruit police officers are under review.
It is perhaps worrying that there is wastage from the Met to the provincial forces. The reasons may be varied, but there are some who suggest that lifestyle is a factor. Equally, because free rail concessions for Met officers will soon be in operation it may well be found that, together with some pay advantages, that attracts officers to London. As a result of the Macpherson report, to which I shall return later, some people who might otherwise have applied to become officers are now, put off so doing. Consequently, although it seems that the budgeted strength may well be achieved in the foreseeable future, I hope that the high standards of police officers will be maintained in future intakes.
I make no apology for having a go at the press. When the Macpherson report was published, the press seized on the words "institutional racism". If there is any section of the community—business, religious or personal—which can say hand on heart that it has not had any racist thoughts or actions, it may be in a position to question the attitudes of others. I very much doubt that such a sector exists. The words "kettle", "call" and "black" come to mind. The press has forced an honourable profession to question its attitudes. Although there are bound to be some who have racist thoughts, the police have always tried to do their best in difficult circumstances. The press has an awful lot to answer for.
I digress slightly at this juncture to illustrate the problem faced by serving officers. After using a radar gun, one traffic inspector who is a friend of mine recently stopped a motorist for exceeding the speed limit. The driver alleged that he had been stopped only because he was black. The officer asked the driver to indicate the sex and colour of the next approaching motorist who was not exceeding the speed limit. The man was unable so to do but repeated his initial
724
allegation. There are people out there who cause problems for officers for no reason whatever. As a result I should not be surprised if at some stage there was a backlash from other ethnic communities.
I return to Macpherson—or, to be more accurate, post-Macpherson. In February 1999, the Met identified stop and search as an area of policing which needed thorough examination. The primary legislation has not changed since 1995, in that the legal objective of stop and search is detection. However, there have been some changes which need to be addressed, notably the Human Rights Act. The value of stop and search has been acknowledged by the Home Office. Research findings have reinforced the belief that persons who are stopped are more likely to be satisfied if they are treated with respect, dealt with politely and given an explanation for the search.
It is interesting to note that in only 12 of some 150,000 searches conducted by Met officers last year were complaints substantiated, and only one of those related to a breach of the code of practice. It is intended that a senior officer in each borough should be responsible for the overall supervision and correct use of these powers in their areas. Although the report was seized on by the press for its own sales figures and intended readers, the police have managed to get over the adverse and unjustified publicity and at last are allowed—sometimes—to get on with their job.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made specific reference to violent crime I shall try to address that area. I believe that this year to date there have been 13 yardie-style murders. Those crimes represent 61 per cent of the total of 19 firearms murders across the Metropolitan Police district. That is a reduction in the number compared with last year's total of 18 yardie murders. So far this year there have been 34 non-fatal yardie shootings, representing 66 per cent of the category of attempted murder involving firearms. It is interesting that the press campaign which led, or forced, the previous administration to ban handguns—some called it a knee-jerk reaction—effectively confiscated the guns of those who held them legally but did little to address the problem of those who did not.
I return to the 13 murders that I mentioned a moment ago. Four of them have resulted in charges, and one is likely to be reclassified because the evidence shows that the victim may have accidentally shot himself. Suspects are being actively sought in four of the remaining cases. Of the 34 attempted murders, 10 have resulted in charges and suspects are being sought in a further eight cases. It is relevant to note that on 17 occasions the victims and associates have refused to co-operate with the police or assist the investigation. It is acknowledged that the people who perpetrate these violent crimes usually emanate from Jamaica. The High Commissioner for Jamaica has provided useful and complementary feedback, and a senior Met officer has visited Jamaica for sensitive discussions with officers there.
When I prepared my speech I was not sure of the noble Lord's definition of "violent crime". I hope that by addressing the problem of the yardies, who are

725
currently the most ruthless and violent criminals around, the police have indicated that they are doing everything possible to get on top of the problem. I believe that they are doing very well within the confines of the manpower and money available to them.
It is worth while pointing out that, whatever the morale of an individual officer, he will always carry out his duties to the best of his ability without fear or favour. He or she is a professional with a sense of duty to the office of constable. I am unable to comment on the morale of officers other than those in the Met, whom I accompany on traffic patrols from time to time, because I have not spoken to them. However, in general terms it seems as if morale within the Met has improved over that which prevailed immediately following the publication of the Macpherson report.
Morale, of course, fluctuates as a result of events and experience. It is mainly adversely affected by media comment when negative, and often inaccurate, reporting leaves officers feeling disillusioned, misunderstood and undervalued. The vast majority of officers who continue to do their duties feel more keenly the effects of bad publicity. They are proud of what they achieve in serving and protecting the public because that is their intention and motivation. They do not apply themselves to their sworn duties to please the Commissioner, their supervisors, journalists or politicians; they do it for the public and to deliver their personal and professional commitment.
Morale, or rather lack of it, can be linked to performance. If an officer's heart is not in the job by reason of a lack of appreciation or support, perhaps the "Why do I bother?" attitude will kick in. A former commissioner was often heard to say that he never worried too much when he heard that his officers were unhappy; he was more concerned if he heard that they were more or less happy with their lot—a very strange philosophy even for a commissioner.
More needs to be done to encourage and preserve the good will and motivation of our officers. I have heard recently that the newish Metropolitan Police Commissioner is seen as a copper's copper, and as one who will be followed by his officers and who has their respect. Morale, therefore, must improve.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tebbit for instigating one of the most important debates that I have listened to in this Chamber.
The morale and numbers of police affect us all in the community. Like many noble Lords, I have attended the passing out parades at Hendon Police College and, indeed, many other police colleges. It is a procession and a parade which usually I find quite choking and emotional. One sees these young people full of hopes and aspirations, with high and good intent and in amazing formation and strength, marching forward and into their futures. They are instilled there with much of the ethos to which we aspire for our police
726
service. The generality of the public in this country want to, and do, support the police service and yearn for it to be a top priority for the Government. Having left Hendon college, the police are dispersed across London to various police stations and into various communities.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned in his speech—on which I congratulate him—the number of police in London is well below what it should be to provide the kind of service required within this capital city. The Metropolitan Commissioner wants to increase the number. The Mayor of London has announced that he seeks to increase the number in the future. He has suggested that he will pay for that out of an increased precept. It would be better if he did not, because the Home Office has already funded it. It has already been paid for. I do not think that Londoners want to pay for it twice if that can be avoided. The principle that there should be more police in London is well accepted and welcomed.
One of the corollaries of having insufficient numbers—it may not be a bad corollary—is that the police have to work in co-operation with local authorities and community representatives to provide a way through the problems which come about partly from not having enough police, and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, to bring together community groups to fight crime. It is not always crime that worries people; it is the fear of crime. As noble Lords who read their local papers will know, the local press in particular note and take advantage of any crime that has happened, such as muggings in the street and burglaries.
The fear is very real. I know of elderly people whose lives are stultified because they are afraid of what may happen. In reality, the fear is often far worse than the actuality and level of crime. That is an awful way for society to live. It is a tempestuous way to live one's life, with the fear that something may happen, that a knock on the door is something of which to be afraid, that it is not good news or someone coming to see you.
People are also afraid to tackle the young. These days many young people go around in groups. In the past—in my youth, a long time ago—if someone saw youths spreading graffiti or breaking in somewhere, an adult would have spoken to them about it. But it is not being a Good Samaritan if we pass by on the other side of the road because we are afraid of what will happen if we become involved because we have been told or we know of a Good Samaritan who tried to do something and ended up with a knife in his heart. It happens too often. That is one of the reasons why crime, particularly that committed by young people, goes unstopped.
Bringing the police and community together begins to address that problem. The community gets a sense of strength from the police being there and from being associated with them. That strength is enormously important. If one empowers and makes courageous the people who live in a community, one empowers and strengthens the police as well, because they are

727
then acting, and can act, with the support of those they serve. They are not acting against them; they are physically acting with them.
I am sure that all noble Lords will remember the years when many local authorities would not allow the police on to their estates. They were no-go areas. Those were tragic times because the people there were always afraid. One of the great signs that progress has been made in the past few years is the recognition that the police should not be the enemy; that they should be, and are, part of the community.
Reference has been made to the work that is now being done openly with young people, and to the presence of police on estates, which are important areas. But are the police still invisible on the streets? I do not know about other noble Lords, but I am always rather grateful when I see two policemen, with their helmets and yellow jackets with "Police" written on the back, ambling towards me up the road. There is a great sense of security when a police car goes past slowly—not dashing past with its bells ringing so that one knows that there is a crisis—because one knows that there is a police presence in the area. To some extent, the importance of police strength and numbers can be dissipated by their working with the community, but I do not think that police invisibility is of any help to the community at all.
One other corollary of the reduction in the number of police officers is the question of CCTV, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I take a slightly different view. I am astonished at the welcome that has been accorded to CCTV. After all, it is a spy in the sky or a spy on the lamp-post. It means that wherever we go, we are filmed. We in the Chamber do not mind because none of us will be doing anything that anyone cares about. One thinks of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. One would not have believed for a moment that anything like that could happen. We have moved on because of the lack of people on the streets available to see what is going on and to take note of it. We cannot go back. Technology will take us further forward and the police will become more and more clever and adept at getting their man without having to leave the comfort of the police station. But that will not be a good thing. I hope that it will not happen.
The cost of the police service matters enormously. One area that needs to be taken into account is the efficiency of the technical management and ordinary management that lies behind the police service. Crime prevention by officers on the street is one aspect of the cost. But the administration behind that service is also costly. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned pensions. The funding of police pensions will bankrupt the police service in the not too distant future. Unfunded schemes mean that, annually, every pension is paid out of whatever income goes to the police service. It is a huge drain on resources. I urge the Government to look at this issue for the future. Nothing can be done about those who are currently in the service. It will take years to get the problem worked out of the system, but the service will be undermined in the future if it is not addressed at some stage.
728
Last week I had the opportunity to raise in the House an area of concern in my borough, Kensington and Chelsea, and in the country generally. Crack houses are prevalent on estates. Crack houses cannot be dealt with by the police because the legislation that prevents people allowing opium and cannabis to be used on their premises does not apply to crack cocaine. I raise the issue again because it is important that something should be done. The Minister was kind enough to say last week that the Government are giving serious attention to this issue. I do not expect him to say anything more than that today. But it is another area that needs to be addressed. It brings fear, intimidation and violence in its wake. Drugs are a cause of crime. When all is said and done, they are probably worse than alcohol. Drugs lie at the centre of much of the crime that ends up in the courts. The police need the right ammunition. They need the legislation. I very much hope that before long the Minister will be able to give me the reassurance that I seek on that point.
Police morale has been very low. There are a number of reasons for that, most of which have been touched on during the course of the debate. It is in all our interests that the problem of police morale is addressed. It is in all our interests that the police should not continually be under scrutiny and criticised—yes, if it is necessary and justified; but it is not always justified. Our safety, our futures and our children's futures rely on our having a police service that is friendly and approachable and makes us feel secure. It is up to us all to ensure that that happens.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for securing this debate. It is an important debate, but let us put it in context. There is always room for improvement, but we have an excellent and professional police service in this country. It is still a model which most other countries look at and envy. Police officers around the country undertake excellent work 24 hours a day. Let us not forget it. We should all be grateful for their work and commitment.
"Police numbers" is an emotive issue. From my work as chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and also as a deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, I know that communities up and down the country want more police officers. What that actually means is an increase in visible policing on the streets, to offer reassurance. That is the outcome that we all want. The main question is how best to achieve it.
It is a matter of fact that in recent years police authorities have faced a string of tight settlements and in many areas recruitment activity had, as a result, been trimmed back significantly; and in some areas frozen altogether. It will take time to turn that situation around, but we are now beginning to see progress on the ground. The proposed settlement for 2001–02—giving an average increase in government

729
funding for policing of 4.9 per cent, and in North Yorkshire, 5.4 per cent—will enable police authorities broadly to maintain existing service levels.
Police numbers overall are now on an upward trend. Police authorities have welcomed the Government's commitment to provide funding to increase police strength by 9,000 officers over and above what forces had planned to recruit over three years. I believe that we need more. The national police recruitment campaign, about which we have heard during the debate, has also generated a significant volume of inquiries. It is still too early to assess the quality of applicants. But police force recruitment departments are running flat out to keep pace with demand. Crucially, all the police training schools are now running to full capacity to keep pace with recruitment demand.
One could certainly argue that the Government acted too late. They could have prevented the dip in recruitment over the past couple of years by investing more resources in policing at a much earlier stage. But we are now beginning to see an increase and the signs are that the situation will continue to improve over the next year or so. I welcome that.
However, bland police numbers are not the only answer. Providing reassurance to communities through a visible policing presence is what we are seeking. Focusing the debate solely around the issue of police officer numbers actually misses the point. As one would expect, it is much more complicated than that. Funding for new police officers on its own is not the answer. Police authorities also need funding to be able to invest in new IT, equipment and assets. Without this, the police officers whom we already employ cannot be used efficiently and they will spend unnecessary time in police stations filling out forms. That is unacceptable.
Equally, we need to ensure that police officers specialise in policing functions, not routine administrative work. The danger of focusing the debate on police numbers is that insufficient money will be left in the pot to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of civilian support staff. It is perverse to spend money on expensive police officers, only to have to use them on administrative duties. This needs to be looked at in the round.
One of the key reasons for the steady decline in police numbers over recent years has been investment in new technology, which has in fact increased police efficiency. PSRCS, which has already been referred to this afternoon—or Airwave, as it is now known—the new police digital radio system, serves as a good example. Once implemented, it will deliver a range of efficiency savings. The same number of officers will be able to spend significantly more time on operational duties because they will have direct access to data and information through their radio handsets. However, we also heard that the cost is significant: nearly £200 million per year. Police authorities have called on the government to provide the resources to enable them to undertake an IT modernisation programme. New investment is needed to deliver long-term efficiency
730
savings across the service. I have to admit that the Government have provided additional resources for Airwave and we are grateful for that. However, the investment needs to continue if the increased police numbers now being planned are to be retained.
Increasing police numbers is not the only answer to increasing reassurance in local communities. We also need imaginative solutions, some of which are already proving to be highly popular. For example, police offices can be co-located in rural post offices. We have done this most successfully in North Yorkshire by co-locating with a community office in Hawes in the heart of the Yorkshire Dales. Police officers can be attached to mobile libraries. We need to see the greater use of technology to increase accessibility to policing. All these measures can play a part which we should not forget.
I could not let this debate pass without mention of the thorny issue of police pensions, to which both my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred. The unfunded pension scheme continues to be the single biggest drain on police resources, taking moneys away from current policing needs and priorities. Over 14 per cent of total revenue expenditure in 2001–02 will be spent on pensions. In my own force in North Yorkshire, that will rise to 17 per cent. The pensions deficit—the gap between expenditure on pensions and serving officers' contributions—will this year exceed £1 billion. It will increase by a further £250 million over the following three years. That equates to nearly 10,000 police officers. An announcement from the Home Secretary on his proposals for dealing with the rising pensions bill is long overdue. Police authorities believe that the only tenable solution in the long term is to introduce a funded pension scheme alongside improvements to the operation of the existing scheme.
I shall turn now to violent crime. This is an area which most concerns citizens. The better recording of such crimes has definitely meant that more and clearer statistics have become available and thus it may appear that more crimes in general are being committed. Of course the police must concentrate on dealing with violent crime, much of which is perpetrated by alcohol or drug abuse. However, few forces were given performance indicators to drive down violent crime in their areas. In fact, only the five metropolitan forces were given money in order to help them achieve their targets to drive down such crime. This, I suggest, places in context the fact that we are not beset by violent crime throughout the country, although when it does occur it causes maximum anxiety—a fact that I would not dispute in any way. I know that police officers and managers alike throughout the police service are taking their responsibilities for clearing up and preventing violent crime very seriously indeed.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on police morale. We should never underestimate claims that morale is low. Much media criticism of policing has been aired in recent years, some of which is justified, but some of which is not. However, I have to say that my close association with policing in North Yorkshire

731
does not altogether bear that out. We still manage to come up with some of the best crime figures in the country, in spite of being a traditionally low-funded force—indeed, one of the lowest funded in the country.
Our officers have performed magnificently during three extremely difficult years when the force had to be reorganised and staff had long periods of uncertainty about their futures. At that point, morale could fairly be said to have been low. However, when officers began to see the benefits of the many changes imposed, and were told that by next year more officers would be in post than North Yorkshire has ever had before, I can tell the House that morale picked up significantly.
On Monday, I spent the day with officers in York. I went out with a traffic sergeant. He and his colleagues dealt with a horrific road accident on the A.64. When we arrived, a tailback of traffic over a mile long had already formed. It continued to grow rapidly. The driver of the car was trapped and the fire service and police were trying to pull him out. The other vehicle involved had shed some of its load all over the road. The scene was absolutely chaotic. However, within minutes, order had been restored and, once the casualty had been cut free and transported to hospital, the police set about getting the traffic moving again. I saw use being made of a kind of theodolite, which speeded up significantly the measurement-taking necessary for court purposes. That is another piece of modern, expensive but very necessary equipment which the police need to use in their everyday jobs.
I spoke to each officer. Without exception, they told me how delighted they were with the news about the extra officers. Their managers, the Police Federation and Superintendent's Association, also said that they felt that this would be marvellous for morale. Things are moving in the right direction here, although there is still some way to go. All share in the responsibility for maintaining morale in the police service. Debates of this kind must be constructive. We need to recognise the enormous effort and commitment of officers up and down the country. Their work is valued and should be more so. I am confident that all Members of this House share that sentiment.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I recognise that many noble Lords have concentrated their remarks on urban-based police forces, but I wish to look at rural areas. While I accept and acknowledge that more violent crimes are committed in urban centres, such crimes are also committed in rural areas. In my home county of Leicester, rural violent crime accounts for 10.7 per cent of total rural crime, compared with 16.3 per cent of total urban crime in our area.
I contacted my local chief constable to ask him about two of the issues we are debating today: first, recruitment in the county of Leicestershire. In his letter, the chief constable confirmed that his force has been fortunate enough to maintain a high level of recruitment. He stated that,
"in fact over the past few years we have been one of the few forces in the country that has continued to increase its police establishment".
732
Perhaps that is helped by the fact that Leicestershire is 100 miles north of London and thus far enough away from some of the great difficulties faced by police forces in the capital and the home counties. However, the chief constable goes on to state in his letter that,
"recruiting is becoming more difficult".
I also asked about officer morale. In his reply, the chief constable pointed out that morale is "extremely difficult to measure". However, a survey recently carried out among the force indicated that the staff are,
"highly committed to policing and the provision of the highest quality of service to the people of Leicestershire".
That sentiment reflects the remarks made by the previous speaker. However, the chief constable went on to say that:
"Inevitably incidents will occur which will affect morale on a local basis".
He also made a comment which I believe is even more important; namely,
"that that is the nature of life and not just policing".
The debate today reflects that. It is not simply one item.
I wish to spend a little time reflecting on the problems facing rural areas. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Tebbit, in opening the debate, commented that rural crime in some areas goes unreported. If I were ever to plead guilty, it would be to that. On three occasions during the past 18 months we have not reported to the police petty crimes and difficulties that we have had at our home. They were small issues that we coped with and got over. They should have been reported but they were not.
The cost of crime is a real cost. Perhaps I may give some figures. The National Farmers Union mutual underwriting manager, Sid Gibson, said in July last year that he estimated that thefts from homes and businesses in rural areas cost in the region of £168 million last year.
I looked at the rural White Paper recently to see what the Government had to say about this issue. I had to search to find where it referred to policing. I found a reference in the ninth paragraph—the first and only mention of the police:
"We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years".
I am suspicious that the Government do not appreciate the level of concern in rural areas about the lack of available police support. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions in regard to the extra £45 million. First, to what extent is it extra? If, for example, it is extra to last year's expenditure, will there also be a different "extra" equivalent to the normal uplift, year on year?
Secondly, does "over the next two years" relate to financial years or calendar years? Thirdly, how will the Government split the £45 million between the two years? For example, will it be £20 million in the first year and £25 million in the second year?
Fourthly, will the money be allocated according to the existing formulae? If so, will it go into police budgets at the start of each year? If not, how will it be

733
allocated? Will it go to the same rural forces which are due to share the £15 million announced on the 20th July last year to improve police response times?
Fifthly, will each police force be allowed to decide how, where and when the money is spent, or will it be earmarked by the Government? If the latter, to what purpose will it be devoted? Sixthly, will the money, once allocated, belong to each police force as of right, or will they have to mount costly, time-consuming and not always successful bids for it?
Seventhly, will the extra money be tied to measurable improvements in police support in rural areas—for example, to a reduction in the average length of time it takes to respond to 999 calls, village by village? For someone in a very remote area, 35 minutes is an awful long time to wait for the police to arrive if he is under attack from yobs.
Lastly, can the Minister assure the House that the £45 million announced in paragraph 9 is not related in any way, in whole or in part, to the £15 million announced on 20th July for the improvement of police response times, nor to the CSR allowance of £30 million per year for each of the next three years for rural police forces?
I turn now to the funded pension scheme—or, should I say, the unfunded pension scheme. Three noble Lords have referred to this hugely important issue already—that is one of the disadvantages of being lower down on the list of speakers—and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. It concerns us greatly. The Government's response has been to announce short-term funding to cover the shortfall over the next three years.
Meanwhile, special initiatives multiply. One of the latest is the £30 million fund—open to bids—to introduce up to 50 neighbourhood warden schemes. I understand that these will be located predominantly in rural areas and will have, on average, five wardens to patrol set areas. Can the Minister say whether the wardens will have access to vehicles and, if so, to what vehicles? Can he say further whether the wardens will be of normal serving police officer age or whether the maximum age will be raised to allow ex-policemen to supplement their pensions?
At the same time as the Government are funding neighbourhood warden schemes, they have been faced with a fall in the number of special constables, a matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. There has been a fall of 32 per cent—some 6,346—in the number of serving special constables since March 1997. What steps have the Government taken? Have they analysed the exit interviews of serving special constables? If so, what follow-up action has been taken to ascertain why such a dramatic fall in numbers has occurred?
The police face the consequences of the rising pension burden; of the need for high salaries and living allowances, to which several noble Lords have referred; of a backlog of the repairs necessary to buildings and equipment; of new crime reduction targets and even newer legislative requirements. The police have to cope with the implications of
734
Macpherson, of the animal welfare lobby—an issue raised during Questions today—and, on the horizon, the prospect of a ban on hunting with dogs.
As to the increasing responsibilities on an already stretched police force, I should like to refer to the comments of Tim Hollis, an assistant chief constable, in the Daily Telegraph on 19th January. At the end of the article he states:
"It goes without saying that the police will do their best to meet the demands of any new legislation. But, inevitably, hard decisions will have to be made on the priorities".
On the other side of the equation, I can remember that when I was young the scrumping of apples earned you a wigging from the local bobby. Nowadays, you would probably receive a community service order. The Countryside Act, which I helped to take through the House, became law yesterday. It creates new offences of a criminal nature which will have to be dealt with by the police. This House awaits the Bill to ban hunting with dogs, which the Government intend to introduce. This will also create a new section of criminal legislation, to be enforced—often in the more remote areas of the countryside—by a largely urban-based police force.
To make matters worse, there is a set of problems which will not go away, which takes up a lot of police time and which rarely results in crimes being solved. I shall mention two problems in particular—animal welfare protesters and travellers.
Animal welfare protesters have been in the headlines almost continuously for the past four years. The Government—I give them their due—have paid extra money on several occasions to hard-pressed police forces to help them meet their overtime bills. Can the Minister tell the House the Government's current thinking on solutions to the problem of these people who do not care about human welfare? They threaten, they intimidate, they destroy, they vilify; they have no regard to the legal framework in which the rest of society lives. Their misbehaviour is no longer rare; it is becoming an almost daily threat in some parts of the country to some overworked police forces and the range of individuals harassed by them is on the increase.
I turn briefly to the issue of travellers. Some refer to them as gypsies but I shall refer to them all as travellers. They also thumb their noses at the law. They rely on intimidation and bullying behaviour to persuade the law enforcement agencies to leave them alone. They flout planning laws; they threaten local communities; they cost local authorities and private individuals large sums of money in clearing up after them. Will the Minister indicate what the Government have in mind to alleviate the situation and what is their timetable for doing so?
My noble friend Lord Tebbit has given us an opportunity to consider, in the calm and peace of this Chamber, the challenges facing today's police. The newspapers will have it that morale is low. I find myself wondering whether it is not quite so much that morale is low but that the police cannot see a way of dealing with the complexities which are thrust upon them, as I

735
have tried to show, by changes in the way we live, by the laws we pass and by the kind of behaviour that has become an accepted part of daily living.
I try to be a law-abiding citizen and, therefore, I do not usually meet the police at the wrong end of a charge sheet. However, I go out and about, and I meet with a large number of police officers in the course of my duties. Whether it is a chief constable or a bobby on the beat, I find them helpful, committed, dedicated to the job that they do but despairing in some cases of getting the support they need from government and from the law.
I know that all noble Lords will join with me in recording our thanks to the members of our police force for the work that they do. They deserve our support.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for providing the opportunity for this important debate. I shall concentrate on one aspect of the prevention of violent crime. I should like to join the noble Lord and other speakers in paying tribute to the police. These public servants, in the line of duty, are often faced with threatening behaviour and verbal abuse, as I have witnessed. They deserve our respect and gratitude for their normal self-restraint and perseverance in such circumstances.
Yesterday afternoon I visited the Orchard Lodge secure unit in south London. This institution is for violent 11 to 17 year-old boys. Long established, its education facilities were greatly enhanced by the previous Conservative government. I was very impressed by the way in which these young men—armed robbers, rapists and murderers, as well as some non-offenders—had responded. They were keen to show off their work and discuss their school activities. They vied for good behaviour cards. One of the two boys who had achieved the coveted "gold" card was pleased to tell me of his success.
It was an opportunity also to hear from the senior staff how these children had become involved in violence. A psychologist explained that some came from families with parents who had been unable to set clear boundaries. However, in interviews which looked at particular incidents in detail, 30 per cent of the children reported experiencing physical abuse, neglect and sexual abuse together. More than 80 per cent reported experiencing one or other of these three.
Home Office Research Study No. 209, based on the findings of the Youth Lifestyles Survey, indicates that boys without parental care are twice as likely to get into trouble. Brought up by a lone parent or stepparent, a boy is 40 per cent more likely to become a serious offender than a boy who is brought up with his two natural parents. There is a very good case for supporting families so as to prevent violent crime.
Late last year I visited the Calecott family in Newham. The four children, aged from one to 11 years, and their parents had been living for 12 months in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The mother
736
had an infection of the pelvis and needed a pair of sticks to be able to walk. Without cooking facilities, she could but breast-feed her baby. Mrs Calecott could not take medication for her infection while feeding her son in this way. The children were not allowed to play in the yard except for a few hours on Sundays. The hotel lay on a busy road. The family's main meal was a daily takeaway. Unsurprisingly in these circumstances the five year-old boy was having trouble sleeping. He suffered from nightmares and showed other signs of anxiety. Both parents were anxious about their situation and depressed from fighting with the local authority. The mother had bitten her fingers to the quick.
Recently, I visited mothers at a Barnardos project for families in temporary accommodation. They told of their unhygienic facilities, of the difficulties of managing a child with the kitchen several floors below and no lift, of the endless delays and indignities of local authority housing departments. There are now more households in temporary accommodation than a t any time since 1978. The director of the Catholic Housing Advisory Service tells me that most of these households are families. There are now 6,000 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London.
The capacity of these women to be good mothers is being undermined by a failing housing system. I urge your Lordships to consider that investment in social housing is an important means of preventing violent crime in the long term. I recently received a report on the Albany midwives unit at King's College hospital. The unit works particularly with disadvantaged mothers from Southwark and Lambeth. The midwives have been funded to work with reduced caseloads. They are encouraged to develop a lasting relationship with the mothers. The results have been astounding. These mothers are breast-feeding their babies more often, and for longer, than most other mothers. In this particular group one would expect exactly the reverse.
Breast-feeding encourages babies to put on weight and makes them stronger. Breast milk contains agents which combat infection—and these babies are more resistant to infection. Breast-feeding is good for mother-infant relations. These mothers are likely to have a healthier relationship with their children. Psychologists cannot be emphatic enough about the importance of good mother-infant relations to the formation of a secure personality. These children are less likely to develop personality disorders; they are less likely to be involved in violence. Midwives, health visitors and GPs all play an important part in supporting and strengthening families. There is a clear case for sustained investment in health services to reduce in the long term the level of violent crime.
Some years ago I was a teaching assistant in a primary school off Victoria Street. Ten year-old. Tom repeatedly shouted the answers before he was asked to do so. He lacked self-control. He seemed particularly interested in me because I was a man and his father was not involved in his life. There were two boys who played with their toy robots under their desks while the teacher was busy. They had been set the task of writing

737
a story. Halfway through the time available, their books were blank. Asked by me to see how much they could write in two minutes, setting one against the other, their stories flowed. There are always difficult children, more challenging perhaps because of weak family attachments. With small enough classes, perhaps a teaching assistant, perhaps a male mentor to work with the most difficult boys, teachers can engage with more of their pupils and fewer will decline into exclusion and possible criminality.
I urge your Lordships to be mindful that well-resourced teachers can, in the long term, reduce violent crime. Well-resourced social services departments can play an important part in breaking the cycle of violence within some families. There are few more responsible jobs than that of a social worker. Yet many social services departments are chronically under-resourced. Social services also have a key role in preventing violent crime in the long term.
I urge your Lordships to consider prudent long-term investment in public services as a most important means of lowering the rate of violent crime. I ask your Lordships to remember the example of the United States, where long-term under-investment in essential public services has contributed to a prison population of a staggering number and cost. I do not seek to cast aspersions on that great country—many of the Americans I meet admit the fault, and I was pleased for us to learn as much from their nation's mistakes as from its successes.
It costs £150,000 per annum per head to keep those boys who live in Orchard Lodge, the institution with which I began my remarks. It would be far better for the taxpayer and for our society if we were to develop, and maintain in the long term, the vital early support for families and children that housing, health, education and social services can provide. I applaud the new investment that this Government are making in public services and the good economic management of the previous administration that helped to make such investment possible.
6 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I listened to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with great admiration. I should like to congratulate him not only on the practical research that he carried out into the problem but also on his perspicacity and courage in focusing upon an aspect of the problem of violent crime that became the kernel of his remarks. Of course it is amenable to parody, just as the views of anyone from any scale of the spectrum in this enormously difficult problem are open to parody. I do not believe that anyone else, except the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, has approached the subject from that angle. I am most grateful to the noble Earl.
I planned to begin my remarks to your Lordships by observing that, as a country, we are not a cruel nation or a cruel people. On the contrary, I believe that we abhor cruelty, and that feature is perhaps increasing. Yet I suggest that the central feature of violent crime
738
is its cruelty. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a paradox here. In this country, which is far from cruel in its predilections, it is common ground that violent crime, and the cruelty inherent in it, are increasing.
I should like to follow the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the following respect at least. It seems self-evident that we should focus our own interest in stemming—though "attacking" is perhaps a better word—the springs of violent criminality. We should focus our attack upon the young because they are the ones who are the most impressionable in our society. In the main, I believe that they can best be impressed by the cruelty of violent crime. We should emphasise the latter.
Where the "norm" is violence, whether in real life or in the menu of entertainment that is put forth day after day and night after night, the capacity for the cruelty in violent crime to impress the young in particular is blunted. In fact, it is probably often destroyed. I am afraid that that is what has happened in real life. I shall give your Lordships an example. I speak with much deference in the presence of my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead, with whose speech I entirely agreed. We have seen in certain parts of Northern Ireland that violence of a kind that would be continually horrifying in Great Britain has become accepted—by some at any rate—as the norm.
As for the quality and quantity of violence in visual broadcasting by way of action, behaviour and language, I believe that to be most disturbing. It is also very dangerous. That is true not just of Northern Ireland—in fact, I believe it is rather less true of the Province—but also as regards what is provided by way of entertainment in Great Britain. If anything, I should like to suggest that it is made worse rather than better in its impact by programmes being characterised as "adult". It rather suggests that that is how the big boys, the grown-ups, behave. It seems to me that nothing could be more calculated than to suggest to young people that this is how grown-ups behave and thereby lead them to decide to start down that road.
What is the justification—or the purported justification—for this "norm"? I believe that it is said to lie in freedom of expression. But this particular manifestation of freedom of expression forseeably leads young people to lose a much wider freedom later in their lives at the hands of the criminal courts, as they progressively emulate what they see. Indeed, I believe that they do just that when they see such examples placed before them. The greater part of the truthful answer is that violence is recognised by programme makers as exerting a kind of morbid fascination for a very large number of viewers and, therefore, it boosts the ratings.
As a country, we tend to stick a label on the problem; namely, "Touch at your peril". Therefore, we tend to concentrate not on diminishing the springs of criminality but on trying to staunch the floods of violence that flow from them. More police and more effectively deterrent sentences are our goal, and quite rightly so in the present circumstances. We need to have more sentences that truly deter the offender from

739
reoffending and truly deter other offenders from emulating such behaviour. If we can introduce a sentence that really achieves those aims, we need it; indeed, plenty of it.
Perhaps we could also introduce prison regimes that would educate and prepare inmates for resettlement. However, I am afraid that the Government are failing over far too wide an expanse of the spectrum, if not the whole of it. For example, although we have costly campaigns at public expense against smoking, where, I ask the Minister, is the campaign against criminality? Who is in charge of this sector of social engineering, what is his remit and, indeed, his budget? In other words, what is the Government's policy on campaigning against criminality?
Further, why do the Government suppose that police morale is as low as it seems to be? I believe that it is common ground that police morale is much lower than it should be; indeed, it is much lower than it has been in the past. However, if it is not common ground, do the Government accept that morale is low? If so, can the noble Lord give us the reasons behind it in the view of Ministers? In the vast majority of cases, I believe that men and women join the police service mainly out of a desire to serve the public. The Government and the police committees in the country are the people who represent the public in this context. Low morale in a workforce—in any service—surely implies lack of confidence in its direction. Can the Minister say whether the Government have given any thought to that view? Have they considered why it should now be the case that there is such a lack of confidence in the police as regards the direction of the service? Surely the Government have access to any amount of research. I do not believe that it is enough to say that it should not be happening; nor could they possibly get much reasoned support if they were to say, "Well, it's only the bad eggs who are unhappy".
I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Tebbit for including the question of police morale in the heading of his Motion. Indeed, the whole area is an excellent subject, yet most disturbing. I was told only recently by a serving officer from a large police force in England and Wales that the greater number of people, not just a few, did not want to continue serving any longer.
Perhaps I may offer my own explanation for the situation. Despite the fact that the police service in England and Wales is probably the most regulated and scrutinised in the world—second only to the Royal Ulster Constabulary—police officers have the perception that they lack the support from those in authority over them that is necessary if they are not to feel that they are unvalued. I refer to the degree of support that must lead them to feel that risking their lives and limbs is a proper, justified and proportionate part of the bargain that they make with the public. That is thought to be lacking.
Of course the rule of law must be upheld. That includes, of course—perhaps one might say particularly—seeing to it that the police as well as the rest of us stay within the law. But the police have the
740
impression—this is far too widely held, in my view— that in the face of any complaint, from whatever quarter, however stale, they are expected to he on the defensive from the outset. They are frequently suspended for months, if not years. They start in any event several points behind the complainant in what becomes immediately an adversarial procedure and not an inquiry. They are obliged to try to prove a negative, no matter how stale the complaint may be. I warmly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in that regard.
I do not think that there can be any more vivid illustration of what I am discussing—albeit this incident occurred in another part of our country than the ongoing Bloody Sunday inquiry, with all its remarkable and happily unprecedented features. It was misguidedly justified on all sides, including, I regret to say, on my party's side, on the ground that we must get at the truth. But you do not get at the truth after eight years, let alone after 28 years. What you get are numerous lives spent in the public service being imperilled in some cases and almost ruined in many more cases by what I believe to be a most regrettable procedure. I further diverge into Northern Ireland by expressing my agreement—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am slightly confused as to why the noble and learned Lord has mentioned the Bloody Sunday inquiry. As I understand it, that investigation concerns aspects of an armed services operation.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I mentioned that matter as I fully agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, with regard to the harm that arises from investigations and public inquiries into matters that occurred long, long ago when those at the receiving end are put on the defensive and are required to prove a negative.
I now turn to the question of prison sentences, which merges with that of prison regimes. Of course there are some offenders who above all else must be kept out of the way of doing harm. But the reoffending record of the inmates of most prisons is lamentable. The Government are not making progress fast enough, if at all, on that aspect. Indeed, I am not at all sure that they are not going backwards.
The Minister replied to a debate which I instituted in this House about a fortnight ago on Her Majesty's Prison Blantyre House which had become the flagship of resettlement prisons in this country, with an extraordinarily favourable reoffending rate of about 8 per cent, compared with 27 per cent for resettlement prisons generally and over 50 per cent across the whole prison estate. But unfortunately the Government are supporting measures from the Prison Service Agency which will reduce the education budget in that successful prison, abolish the teaching of art and photography, increase education class sizes and make the prison much more like a standard Category C prison. That, I venture to suggest, is an extraordinary way to treat a prison which has what David Ramsbotham described as an amazing success record.

741
After nearly four years the Government are presiding over rising violent crime, falling, or at any rate, low police morale and falling police numbers. I think that my noble friend Lord Tebbit will be thanked by a great many people in the country for shining the light of scrutiny on to this record. I hope that he and others will scrutinise, as I shall, such answers as your Lordships receive to the questions I have asked.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for introducing this subject. In a break during this afternoon's proceedings he and I reflected on the time which we had spent working in the public sector. I worked there rather longer than he did. I remember being told by various old soldiers in many places that they had never known morale to be as low as it was. I am sure that that is just what one would find on any railway platform tonight. When the service is at a low ebb, when things are a shambles and when people have their backs to the wall, morale is low. Morale can be repaired quickly if people believe that they are achieving success, however success is measured. I know from my days working for the railways that if trains run to time, are reasonably full and if the newspapers get off their backs, morale rises rapidly.
I am convinced that low morale in the police force can be repaired. Obviously, restoring the numbers of policemen is one part of that; but other things are also necessary such as good, inspired leadership. Great changes are taking place in the police force. In my local Thames Valley force there are now three women among the six chief officer ranks. Twenty years ago to have three women chief officers out of six in a police force would have been regarded as outrageous and would no doubt have been denounced by the people who talk about low morale as being one of the reasons for it. One gets over these things, but one gets over them slowly with a constructive policy within a force which aims to change things.
I want to talk for a moment about an evening I spent in the police control centre in Reading on the Friday before Christmas. I mention this in the context of why morale might be low in the police service. I went to the control centre because I chair the police complaints committee and we have had some problems. I decided to investigate the problems for myself. They have been solved and need not detain us this evening.
As I say, I visited the control centre on the Friday before Christmas. People had finished work that lunchtime and had been celebrating. A number of incidents were reported. There was a fairly large crash on the edge of the motorway. A body was found in the River Thames. There were numerous small fights and fracas in bars in the centre of Reading. All those incidents were attended to promptly and efficiently, as far as I could see. However, some of them, for example, the motorway crash, were extremely greedy in terms of the number of police officers needed to sort out the problems.
742
Calls were received from residents who lived near one of the parks in the town. They said that young people were riding motor cycles round the park, through the park gates, down their road and back again. Another call was received from someone who reported graffiti being sprayed on vehicles in a residential area. These incidents are not treated as top priority as no one is being beaten to death or anything of that kind. The distress felt in the control room was not caused by not being able to attend to the first-line incidents, but by not being able to attend to those "social" incidents which caused distress. The police ought to have been able to attend to those incidents but the available resources did not permit us to attend to them immediately. The officer in charge told me that dealing with the motor cyclists in the park would require five officers. He said that he would not send one officer to chase the motor cyclists as that would make the situation worse rather than better.
Bad morale arises, first, when we cannot deal with the urgent incidents—in the case I cite we could; and, secondly, when we do not give the service the public want. When they ring for the police, they want someone to do something effective about whatever is wrong. The number of officers available did not allow that level of service to be provided. In most towns, cities and rural areas, the police cannot respond as they would like to do to a wide range of incidents
I come to what I regard as a key issue. In the Thames Valley we are trying very hard to meet recruitment targets. We cannot do so. As fast as we recruit people, others leave to work with other forces. Although police numbers in this country are rising, they are not rising in the Thames Valley. We have lost about 60 of our officers already this year—more than the number of extra recruits we have taken on.
There are two ways to deal with the matter. The first concerns the Home Office and must be attended to. The salaries we pay are insufficient to allow people to get on the housing ladder. Seventy-five per cent of our recruits are single people; 60 per cent come from outside the Thames Valley. We have to provide some accommodation for them and it cannot be police housing. Policemen nowadays do not want to live in tied cottages. They do not want to live in ghettos with other policemen. They want to be part of the community.
The second point is a matter I have raised with the Minister previously and to which he has given polite and reassuring answers. However, the whole police service is now waiting for a definite answer. We have heard that 6,000 Specials have left the force. Can we have some system of payment for part-time police officers? I am confident that we could recruit several hundred extra officers if we could pay people for one evening's training a week and one evening or day's service at the weekend. Many problems arise at peak times. We know that we shall need officers on Friday evenings. We know that when there is a football match on a Saturday, we shall need them. If industry has a peak demand, it has some form of part-time cover to deal with the problem.

743
A positive response from the Home Office on that point would go a long way to solving manpower problems in the short term. Being able to respond to those anti-social incidents would satisfy not only the police that they are giving a good service but also the residents of the Thames Valley.
I shall not go over many of the other issues. They have been adequately covered by noble Lords. Can the Minister respond, first, on the issue of housing; and, secondly, can we retain some form of special police force? At present, the Specials are sinking away into oblivion.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, from the tail-end position usually occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Tebbit on choosing this subject from the many issues in which he is involved. My only regret is that we have not had the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn. I fully understand that as a serving Metropolitan Police officer he could not have spoken today. In his place, we had the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, who, as a recently serving police officer, has given much advice. However, I do not believe that either side of the House benefits by complaints about what the other side has done.
I join my noble friend Lord Marlesford and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew in commending the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. He asked a question that the Minister cannot be expected to answer. However, the Minister responds on behalf of the Government. I hope that he will pass the matter on to his noble and right honourable friends and that we shall receive some sensible answers to the vital questions that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, posed.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It is not true to say that you can never find a policeman when you need him. In June 1979 my house was struck by lightning and began to smoulder nicely. We had no electricity or telephone but within five minutes a police car arrived, summoned by the alarm of the tree surgeons who occupy the farmyard. My wife went to the police car with the immortal words, "The house is on fire. Could you ring 999 for the fire brigade". The fire brigade responded as quickly as the police had. Quick responses to calls for police are vital in town and country but you cannot have a quick response without the manpower. Almost all noble Lords have spoken about the drop in manpower numbers, particularly in London. In eight years there has been a decrease of 11 per cent.
However, there is immense waste of manpower. A few years ago a friend of mine, an inspector, commented on the fact that he had to sign a number of gun licences. That inspector is now retired from the police force and is employed, as are many former policemen, by a security firm. But why was an active inspector signing gun licences, about which there were no criticisms?
744
For sergeants and constables the compulsory retirement age is 55 years. The man or woman receives a full pension after 30 years. He or she could be 48½ on retirement. Inspectors can continue after 30 years, but the compulsory retirement age is 60. Most are active and fit (in the case of my friend, perhaps a little rotund) and able to carry out police work of an administrative nature. Employing retired policemen and civilian officers would enable more police officers to be involved in active policing. At present many policemen are involved in inspection of gun ownership and gun licences. It may be necessary; I think that it is overdone. That could quite well be carried out by retired police officers.
The problem as regards numbers is one of retention rather than recruitment. We have heard that the police colleges in certain counties are full. I hope that standards are not being lowered to get policemen into the force.
As with the Armed Forces, the problem is not getting people in, but keeping them once they are there, particularly those who have experience and ability and know what they are doing. Too often, they are just paddling along, doing their duty in the easiest way possible, waiting for the moment when they can retire.
There must be some doubts about the top ranks in the police. My noble friend Lord Marlesford mentioned the pre-war Hendon Police College, which was extremely successful in bringing forward a considerable number of very good policemen. I refer in particular to Simpson in London and St Johnston, the generator of "Z-Cars", in Lancashire. They benefited enormously from what they had learned in police college and the quick promotion that they were given. I knew St Johnston well. On one occasion while on the beat in London, he arrested a lobster crossing Jermyn Street.
Lord Tebbit: A lobster?
Lord Burnham: A lobster.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I could understand if he had arrested a mobster, but not a lobster. What was its offence?
Lord Burnham: Jaywalking, my Lords.
Hendon Police College was killed by representations made by the lower ranks, who did not like that type of promotion. The system is worth further consideration to enable the best people to be in the top ranks—I do not say that those currently in the top ranks are not the best people.
The morale and self-belief of policemen have been damaged. Macpherson—and many others—are greatly to blame for that. Those who complain are sometimes prosecuted. I hope that the police get the back-up that they need and deserve in order to do their jobs properly.

745
The police do not always help themselves. I declare an interest in this question. Why did the Essex police authority turn down a gift of £10,000 from the freemasons of the county to buy a heart defibrillator? What on earth are they playing at? Do they value political correctness above the possible saving of life? The freemasons have many justifiable causes for complaint. An organisation with the delightful name of VOMIT, which stands for victims of masonic—I cannot remember what the IT stands for—distributes flysheets. One, which was picked up a couple of weeks ago in Uxbridge public lavatory—sorry, Uxbridge public library—was written by a man who complained about a minor motoring offence of which he had been convicted. He blamed everybody from the constable to the magistrate, saying that they were part of a masonic plot against him. Although the leaflet was found in Uxbridge, the case took place in south Dorset. The honourable Member for South Dorset, Mr Ian Bruce, who was also mentioned in the pamphlet tells me that the case happened seven years ago.
There are many freemasons in the police force, but there is no more evidence against any of them for any wrongdoing than there is against the Rotarians, the Ovaltinies or any other body. Attacks should not be made on policemen for any reason; that will make them feel that they are not wanted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, talked about the high morale in North Yorkshire. I wonder whether that has anything to do with the influence of the right honourable Member for Richmond. Life is undoubtedly easier in that sort of country area than it is in the metropolitan area.
I am deeply sorry that the police have to perform tasks such as clearing up motorway crashes caused by sheer bad driving and the many other extremely unpleasant jobs that they have to do. They must have all our deep sympathy as well as our support.
God helps those who help themselves. I shall finish with a parable. This morning, driving up on the A40, I found a small queue at Savoy Circus that was disturbed by the blaring of a police car, with noises and lights coming from every orifice. With great courtesy and skill—and considerable difficulty—all the cars in the queue got out of the way so that the police car could go by and it swept on its way. The public will do that for the police, but they need the police to help them when they need them.
6.37 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I think that it was F.E. Smith who confused the National Liberal Club with a public lavatory. I am worried that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, seems to confuse a public lavatory with a library. I shall let that pass.
I confess to an unworthy thought. When I saw who was moving the Motion, I thought that Tory Central Office had decided to set old knuckle-duster Norman on the issue to get the knees trembling in the home counties. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, introduced the debate in a most statesmanlike
746
way. Before the Minister gets too complacent, I advise him to read the speech with care. I have watched the noble Lord in many guises over 30 years. There is no one like the Chingford strangler for sticking the stiletto between the ribs while still smiling and reassuring the victim. When the Minister reads the noble Lord's speech tomorrow, he will find that it was not quite as gentle as a first listening might have led him to think.
One of the pleasures of this House is the expertise that is brought to debates. We have seen that recently on health matters and we frequently see it on education and defence. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, and my noble friends Lady Harris and Lord Bradshaw have brought their direct experience—the noble Lord as a police officer and my noble friends on police authorities—of the issues facing the police services. That has added to the richness of the debate.
My contribution is that of a layman. I am the voice of the consumer. As a consumer, I believe that it is fair to say that the general public are becoming cynical about politicians who constantly parade simple solutions to the problems of law and order and who constantly imply that their opponents are soft on crime and criminals. For almost a decade and two successive Home Secretaries, we have been given quick-fix solutions in response to genuine public concern about crime.
Both Michael Howard and Jack Straw have resorted to populism and panic rather than face up to the less headline-catching reforms required to tackle these problems. Each in turn has sought to give the impression that, with one more extension of police powers and one more turn on the screw of civil liberties, we could all sleep easier in our beds. The result of this decade of hard men at the Home Office is, we are told, an all-time low in police morale and continuing public anxiety about crime. The coming general election promises only more of the same from Labour and Conservatives alike. Yet, do more and tougher measures make us safer? My noble friend Lord Dholakia asked a question of the Minister to which he received a reply.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the noble Lord know whether his noble friend will honour us with his presence during the winding up of the debate?
Lord McNally: My Lords, he will try to do so. If he does not, it will probably be for a very good reason.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia asked the Minister how many criminal offences were created by the legislation passed in 1999–2000. The reply, which has now appeared as a Written Answer, is 123. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, constantly campaigns for less legislation. I believe that that reply provides an illustration of the type of burden with which the police have had to deal. The Home Office, in particular, has produced a deluge of legislation.
There are no quick fixes. As indicated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in a different way by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the real

747
response lies in addressing the mix of financial, political and social solutions which are at the heart of both the problems of police numbers and police morale. Of course, increased resources for pay and conditions will help. But we must accompany that with measures to reconnect police and policing to the communities which they seek to serve. We should underpin the policy with community-based solutions both to fighting crime and providing alternatives to it for the youth age group, which is the cause of most public concern.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth indicated, crime fighting is not only a job for the police. We must face the problems posed for our society by the cultural changes that have taken place over the past 30 years. A number of noble Lords have referred to our less deferential society, which produces a problem not only for the police but for teachers and other formal figures of authority.
The current modernisation programme brought forward by the Government is not as joined up as it should be in developing a better police service. That is why we on these Benches believe that the Home Secretary is foolish to continue to resist the setting up of a Royal Commission or a more permanent body with similar powers. Such a body could carry out a root and branch review of the service and make recommendations which could help to rebuild public confidence in the police. Indeed, it may be able to carry out some of the work referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in investigating questions of police morale. Perhaps that would also promote a more balanced, national debate—one which I hope would address the whole combination of issues encompassed by the law and order problem.
Let us start by establishing some facts about where we are and how we got there. The Times expressed the situation relating to police numbers fairly and squarely in its editorial of 19th December 2000. It said:
"The plain facts arc that police numbers have been falling for a number of years but especially sharply in the capital. This is largely because of the abolition of a London housing allowance by the last Conservative administration".
Indeed, a number of police sources to whom I have spoken cite as the main cause of low morale the Sheehy report of 10 years ago which resulted in the lowering of starting salaries and the removal of housing allowances, which were regionally tailored.
However, that does not explain why, in spite of numerous warnings, the present Government have allowed police numbers to drop by some 3,000 since the 1997 election, with the most severe impact here in London. Over the past four years, Ministers have trotted out a number of excuses rather than deal with the impending crisis. We have been told that the previous government gave control over budgets, and therefore over recruitment, to chief constables. At one stage, we were assured that outsourcing, new technologies and increased mobility could finesse the shortfall. We were told that police services had to share the constraints on public spending imposed by
748
Kenneth Clarke and embraced with enthusiasm by Gordon Brown during Labour's first three years in office.
Faced with undeniable public concern and the fear that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his friends might exploit that concern, we have seen a sudden change of heart by the Government. But I regret to say that it is not the persuasive power of your Lordships which has brought that about. No; a change of heart has occurred because, first, focus groups are telling them that the public want more bobbies on the beat, and, secondly, a general election is just around the corner. On such high-minded principle does our latter-day Robespierre in the Home Office make his policies.
However, let us not ignore the chance to improve the situation, no matter how opportunistic the Government's reason for their change of heart. There is no doubt that an improvement in pay and conditions will improve recruitment and morale. But other issues must be addressed.
There is the question of job satisfaction and respect. In other debates in this House, I have mentioned growing up with childhood tales from my father. He was brought up in Old Swan in Liverpool, where the policeman was called "Clear off' and would disperse young people with those two words. In my youth, in our village just outside Blackpool, Copper Whalley used to ride around, ram-rod straight, on a bicycle. Just the appearance of him at the top of the road was enough to produce the desired effect. In their own ways, they were both pillars of their community in a manner that policemen probably do not enjoy in this less deferential age.
My nephew joined the Blackpool police and then took the opportunity to emigrate to Western Australia, where he now serves in the Western Australian police force. I asked him what his motivation was for going. I shall always remember his rather chilling explanation. He said, "I found the hatred in the eyes of people I was trying to help in Talbot Square in Blackpool on a Saturday night just too disturbing". I believe that policemen do come across such hostility, particularly among young people. That is something that must be recognised. We must find ways to link the police with the communities which they seek to serve.
In that respect, we should consider in particular the question of police recruitment among ethnic minorities. The other day at Question Time I mentioned that it is 20 years since I raised in another place the matter of the deplorable level of recruitment. Even today, approximately only 2 per cent of our police force comes from ethnic minorities. That cannot simply be due to a lack of willingness to recruit. We must give greater consideration to why our ethnic minorities are not recruited to, and do not stay in, the police force.
A number of references have been made to Macpherson, who, I believe, identified a canteen culture within police forces. Policemen accept that that culture exists and that it needs to be removed. We hear anecdotal evidence about low morale, but it is often

749
the complainants who feel that morale is low who refuse to accept the need for change. We must change our police force so that it is staffed and trained and geared towards policing a modern multicultural Britain. We support the Government in their attempt to bring that about.
Many other issues were raised in this debate, including, for example, car crime and phone crime. At the other end of the police force—the end that is opposite that which is involved with communities—modern policing needs cleverer coppers. Modern global crime and high-tech crime need to be combated by policemen of high quality. I am worried by the fact that there has been a fall in graduate recruitment since 1994. Is the Minister aware of that steady decline? That decline is worrying—it raises long-term issues, it will affect the ability of the police to deal with high-tech crime and it shows that good managerial skills are needed in the police force.
Political and public support for the police, which the police deserve and need, depend on a social contract, which requires from our police democratic accountability, a closeness to the communities—including the ethnic communities—in which they serve and a culture of service and tolerance within the service towards those whom they seek to serve. A police service that has good pay and conditions and training, which offers good career prospects and which is well equipped and well resourced should remove policing from the political battlefield. Such a police service will have a high morale and be held in high public regard.
As for the politicians, I can do no better than to return to an editorial in The Times of 19th December, which warned:
"Populism is quicksand for politicians. It almost ensures maximum publicity for those willing to play it, but also an unpredictable political ending".
Our police and the public deserve better from us in the forthcoming general election than the unedifying spectacle of Miss Ann Widdecombe and Jack Straw mud-wrestling about law and order. If that happens, those politicians deserve to sink into the quicksand to which the editorial in The Times referred.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I join every speaker in this debate in thanking my noble friend Lord Tebbit for launching what has proved to be a thoughtful and constructive debate which has raised real problems. There has been a considerable amount of agreement in the House. It will be difficult for someone who reads Hansard to tell which side Peers were speaking from by their remarks.
However, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, believes that it takes the efforts of
750
Conservative Central Office to set my noble friend Lord Tebbit in action. I assure him that its influence was entirely unnecessary.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I withdraw that remark.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for withdrawing his remark.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I inform my noble friend Lord Cope that the situation was the other way round: I tried to set Conservative Central Office in action.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, exactly so.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit warned at the start of this debate of the problems of interpreting crime statistics. I agree. Whichever way one examines the statistics, particularly those relating to violent crime, they are of massive concern. That is a matter for, and the responsibility of, the police and society more generally, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and others reminded us.
We live in a rapidly changing society. There is much greater acceptance of violence on television, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and others mentioned. There has been a decline in respect and in family life. That was illustrated by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
We also need to consider the different way in which the police are portrayed almost every night on television and in all sorts of other media. They are not presented as an ideal to look up to, as PC George Dixon was many years ago; they are much less inspiring. Sometimes they are bent, and sometimes the hero is an eccentric who is out of sympathy with the bosses and the ethos of the police service in which he serves. In those fast-changing circumstances, the police do an extremely difficult job. I join every noble Lord who has spoken in paying tribute to the police.
Throughout the debate, noble Lords have expressed concern about reduced numbers and low morale in the police force. Morale is extremely important. I have accompanied police on their duties, and I appreciated the guts that are required in some situations, although they may become routine to police constables. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the hostility to which his nephew in Blackpool was subject. All of us at times have probably wondered whether we would be willing to "have a go" in various situations. That again shows the guts that are required by police officers.
How can we measure morale? Charles Clarke, the Home Office Minister, said:
"The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; col. WA 65.]
That is one way to measure morale. Resignations from the police force have gone up enormously during the past few years, which is worrying. Even if every policeman who resigns is replaced by a new recruit who has come through training, an experienced

751
policeman is much more valuable than a brand-new policeman. To lose policemen because of low morale is extremely serious.
Another indication of the state of police morale is the fact that the Police Federation has withdrawn from consultations with Home Office Ministers because it is concerned about the direction in which police reform is leading. That is of concern to us all.
It has been said that there are more than 2,500 fewer officers than there were. The Government promised, by 2002, to return to the figure that applied in 1997. They have given a string of promises while they have been in power: they promised us greater numbers of recruits and more policemen. Let us hope that that promise at least will be delivered.
Several noble Lords referred to the fall in the number of special constables. When I was a Member in another place, I became aware of the huge reliance that my local police force placed on special constables. They police special events and extra car parking at a "big do", but they also work every Saturday night in police stations. However, there are more than 6,000 fewer special constables now than there were a few years ago. I hope that the Minister will comment on the possibility of paying special constables and of keeping them on a retainer basis; similar arrangements apply in other parts of the public service.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, drew attention to the worrying number of assaults and acts of violence against police officers. I have much sympathy with his call for more custodial sentences in such cases. I believe that the Home Secretary today called for tougher sentences to be dished out, not specifically for that crime, but generally. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice asked more or less simultaneously for fewer people to be sent to prison. We shall have to sort out those two contributions on the matter when we see their comments in full.
Assaults on police increased by around 12 per cent last year. The trouble is that 200 of those convicted of assaulting police officers were released from prison under the special early release scheme. That does not help the process. Indeed, around 30,000 convicted criminals in total have been released under that scheme.
Another point running through the debate has been the differences in policing—and the similarities—throughout the country. It is in the nature of British policing that it has always consisted of local forces, typically covering a county, although nowadays often more; and that is the way it should remain. It is not something shared in many cases by other countries. In France the gendarmerie come directly under central government, as do the police in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister of Justice in the Republic is concerned with the appointments of quite low-level policemen throughout the country and with the act ions they take.
752
It is important that our police retain their local forces. There is sometimes talk of regionalisation and of the amalgamation of forces. I am all for cooperation; but the local nature of the organisation of the police is important. In any case, no service can work well during huge upheavals.
We have been reminded that every Bill we pass creates new offences. For that matter, almost every initiative—this applies particularly to financial initiatives—by the Government seems to lead to more ear-marked money going to police forces as opposed to money which the Chief Constable and the police authority can decide how to spend. Every time that happens, it reduces local control over the way in which money can be spent and the way in which a police force can operate. It also increases the complexity of the finances. We are reaching the stage where that is quite serious.
I have no doubt we shall hear about the 10 per cent funding increase announced in November. But over half of that is sidelined for all sorts of different worthy purposes—the Crime Fighting Fund, rural policing and so forth. The actual increase in the money given to police forces is more like 5 or 10 per cent, and that is not even enough to keep the general police force expenditure standing still. Taking account of pay and inflation, pensions, capital finance and costs and levies from the various national crime-fighting agencies, police forces face increased costs of 5.6 per cent simply in order to stay where they are.
That brings me on to pensions. There is no doubt that we need to settle the question of pensions for the future. It is partly a question of allowing police forces and the authorities to manage their budgets more satisfactorily; but it is also partly to do with retaining officers. The more officers who retire, even if they are replaced by new ones, the greater the pension bill becomes and therefore the greater its importance.
Concern has been raised about the capital budget, particularly in relation to police radios. If the Minister has the time, I hope that he will say something about that. Concern was also expressed about bureaucracy. The police now have to comply with 58 performance criteria as well as a "best-value" regime. It must be extremely difficult to hit 58 targets at once. They are all worthy and good. One of the instant reactions when something goes wrong is to introduce new criteria, as well as another sum of money to be added to the budget specifically devoted to the problem. All that makes life extremely difficult, particularly when it comes on top of the fact, as my noble friend said, that the police comprise one of the most examined sectors one can imagine.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to DNA. I sympathise with what he said, especially because of the appalling murder case which happened four years ago in what was then my constituency. The case was eventually solved, I am glad to say, by the use of DNA, and a conviction was obtained. Around 4,500 men had given DNA samples in the course of those police inquiries, and virtually all of those had to be destroyed afterwards. So if another incident should happen,

753
those samples would have to be taken all over again, and it was an extremely expensive operation to carry out.
I support the extension of CCTV. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, it is remarkable that there is so much acceptance of CCTV, by comparison with 1984, as it were; and it is valuable. It was installed in a shopping centre near where I live and the first thing that happened was that hooligans attacked the camera on the following Saturday night. Unfortunately, they did not realise that they had attacked the dummy camera. They were filmed on the real camera and, I am glad to say, were convicted. It was a great success.
I hope also to hear that crack houses will be brought into line with cannabis and opium houses—something about which we exchanged views across these Dispatch Boxes at Questions a day or two ago. That issue has been under consideration for a long time; not just for 12 months, but for at least 12 Bills. We have debated at least a dozen Home Office Bills since it first came under consideration.
My final point concerns policing in Northern Ireland. It is different in many respects from policing in this country because of the history. But morale there is an extremely difficult problem at the present time. From tomorrow, the difficulty will be that the police are obliged to recruit 50:50 from the communities, yet they cannot recruit Catholics as long as the nationalist and republican Churches continue to oppose it so strongly, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said. Yet they are short of manpower and the terrorist threat is rising from both republican and loyalist terrorists, backed by drug racketeers. The terrorists are rearming on both sides and that is a worrying situation.
The most consistent message expressed throughout this debate has been support and admiration for the job that the police do, and a recognition of their problems about which we are all concerned.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to put on record my praise and support for the police. During the time in which I have held this brief I have visited many police stations, met many police officers and had many discussions with people from the police service. As ever, on those visits—they are usually happy occasions—I have been tremendously impressed by the dedication, the strength of view and the commitment to the difficult job that police officers carry out throughout the country.
I also want to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for originating the debate and, in his usual way, focusing on the issues that go to the heart of the matter: police numbers, morale and violent crime. All those issues are at the forefront of the public mind and they are ones about which we are all concerned.
There has been much praise for the nature and tone of the debate. I, too, want to reflect on that. This has been an extremely good debate. I would argue that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was at his most thoughtful.
754
Although he was partisan, as one would expect—one would be disappointed if he was not—he was not above casting criticism retrospectively on previous governments, including his own, where he felt that they had in some way fallen down. I pay credit to him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a good point when he said that because of the comments from contributors and the way in which they addressed the issues, it was, at times, almost possible to forget which political party they came from.
There have been many notable contributions. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, with his insight and knowledge, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with his particular range of interests and critical analysis of the criminal justice system. I enjoyed especially the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her observations and thoughts about London policing, and the comments and reflections from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on rural matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, with her clear and well thought out approach to rural policing matters made some telling points. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for his reflections on some of the difficulties facing the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his "lobster" story, which was possibly the best story of the afternoon. I was only disappointed that he failed to tell us that the lobster had been arrested for wasting police time. I hoped that he would. As ever, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke acres of good sense.
The Government are determined to support the right of every law-abiding individual to go about his or her daily life without fear of falling victim to crime. Likewise, they recognise their responsibility in supporting the police to protect the community and to deter those who are pre-disposed to crime or other antisocial behaviour. That is why we are increasing police funding significantly and in real terms.
In July 2000 we announced our spending plans for policing for the next three years. Details of police grants are being considered today in another place. The overall financial provision is for total spending on the police to rise from £7.7 billion this year to £8.5 billion next year, an increase of 10 per cent, or 7.4 per cent in real terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, commented that that was a good settlement. There will be further increases in 2002–03 when spending will rise to £9 billion and a further 6 per cent in cash terms, or 3.5 per cent in real terms. Spending in 2003–04 will rise an additional 3 per cent to £9.3 billion. In 2003–04, total spending on policing will be over 20 per cent higher in cash terms, or 11.8 per cent in real terms, than in 2000–01.
Why are we spending that money, and what are we trying to achieve? These matters obviously relate to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. It has to be said that our spending increases follow a number of years when any real increases have been modest. I believe that the settlement offers a real incentive to improve the policing service on the ground; which is what we all want.

755
For 2001–02 the total amount of police authority general expenditure to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share of funding will be £7,732 million. That is an increase of £377 million, 5.1 per cent over the 2000–01 settlement. That amount is known as the total standard spending. Grant on total standard spending is paid direct to police authorities. It is for them and the chief officers to determine how best to allocate their resources taking into account local operational needs and priorities.
In addition to funding for total standard spending, police authorities will also receive funds, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for targeted initiatives. The four main ones are to increase officer numbers; to tackle the problems of policing sparsely populated areas; to invest in new communications technology and to expand the DNA programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of rural policing and funding and did so very well. It is the case that following grants of £15 million this year, £30 million is being allocated in each of the next three years to enhance policing in rural areas. That money will be allocated to forces in less densely populated areas. The fund is a response to widespread expressions of concern at the perception of a reduced policing presence in rural areas and communities. Chief officers are expected to deploy their resources to the maximum effectiveness and efficiency. But, as many have noted, that can involve reducing police presence in areas of lower population. Most of us regret the passing of many hundreds of rural police stations; some 630 over the past decade or so. We recognise those tensions.
The 31 police authorities receiving funding under the scheme will need to show in their best value performance plans how they will use the money to improve policing in rural areas. We heard a number of valuable initiatives from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. When I met with North Yorkshire police officers recently, they greatly welcomed the extra £180,000 for the mobile police station, which they thought was a valuable initiative.
The Crime Fighting Fund will provide finance for recruitment, training and pay for up to 9,000 recruits over and above the number forces planned to engage. Provision has been made for 3,000 this year, 3,000 in 2001–02 and 3,000 in 2002–03. We expect the Crime Fighting Fund recruits to have a major impact on police numbers, to which I shall turn shortly. There is one point I need to correct. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that the Prime Minister had said that there will be 5,000 extra police officers by the time of the general election. I do not think that was the commitment we made. I certainly recognise the 5,000 figure. I believe it was Michael Howard who, in 1995, said that he expected to have 5,000 extra police officers as a result of what he then thought was a generous settlement. That turned out not to be the case. We followed those financial plans through. They did not deliver an additional 5,000 officers. I believe that they produced some 256 extra officers in the last year of the outgoing Conservative Government.
756
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, drew attention, I thought valuably, to what is the fourth major development in our programme; that is, the expansion of DNA. We are investing heavily in expanding DNA and the database to hold the DNA profiles of the whole active criminal population by 2004. Support will also be provided to enable forces to visit more scenes of crime and collect and process evidence from the increasing number of DNA matches to offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, gave a good example of how that can work. Taken together, that is an impressive programme of work which will do much for the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, and will greatly improve the quality of service to the public, which is of paramount importance.
A number of Members of your Lordships' House drew attention not just to the numbers issue and the numbers game—that is how many see it and describe it—but to the quality of officers who are being recruited. That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Burnham. The quality of officers, how they are deployed, what they do and what they bring to policing in our communities is at the backbone of our policing. Much is being done to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. A direct comparison of numbers alone over long periods of time is not a reliable measure of relative performance. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. made that point in his opening remarks about the interpretation of statistics. I thought that a valid point.
Nevertheless, the number of officers is a vital component of high-quality policing in the 21st century. As has been said many times today—and it is a key issue—overall police numbers across England and Wales started to fall under the previous government back in 1993–94, except, as I said earlier, for a small temporary increase in 1996–97. Numbers declined in every year under the previous Government and in total by 1,132 between March 1993 and March 1997. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that Metropolitan Police numbers had been falling for seven years. Perhaps I may correct the record. They were falling for 10 years. We see it as important to reverse that number and the latest figures are encouraging in that regard.
From 1994 there was a sustained under-investment in the police service. Government spending rose by an average of only one half of 1 per cent in real terms over the next four years. The housing allowance was removed from all new recruits, severely hampering recruitment in London and the south east in recent years, and central controls over police numbers were removed in the 1994 Police and Magistrates Courts Act. In reply to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I do not see that as an excuse but as an explanation. It is an explanation that deserves to be heard.
The present Government committed themselves at the 1997 general election to sticking to the previous Government's spending plans for the first two years of the administration. That was not from choice but because we judged that the public finances were in too fragile a state to support major spending increases. As

757
a result, police officer numbers fell. Our promise now is a long-term sustained investment that is already boosting police recruitment and technology. We are increasing police expenditure by 21 per cent in cash terms over the next three years—an average annual increase in real terms of 4 per cent.
We have already made provision for recruitment under the Crime Fighting Fund in the current year —£59 million for recruitment, training and pay of the first 3,000 officers from the total three-year programme. We are now beginning to see results. Most forces are recruiting successfully, helped by the national recruitment campaign. By 14th January, there had been 78,000 responses to the campaign advertisements; 34,000 people had rung the call centre; and more than 44,000 had visited the website. Seventeen thousands expressions of interest have been passed directly to police forces.
This is the first-ever national advertising campaign aimed at supporting local police recruitment. It is a three-year campaign which is designed to be self-selecting in order to attract quality applicants into the police service, encouraging people to ask themselves whether they are the right person for the job and reject the idea if they are not. The campaign underlines that the police service is a progressive, modern, high-tech and rewarding career choice. We agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the importance of graduate recruitment and shall be focusing on that issue. Furthermore, we, too, see the importance of tackling high-tech crime and we need to recruit high-quality entrants to the service in order to ensure that we can deal with those precise issues.
Information provided by the police training colleges shows that 5,268 recruits started training in the first nine months of the current financial year, compared with just over 3,000 during the same period of the previous financial year. For the first time since March 1997, the number of officers joining police forces exceeds those leaving. Police numbers between March and September 2000 rose by 444 to 124,614. If current police projections for recruitment and wastage holds good, police numbers should reach 126,000 by the end of March 2001, 128,000 by March 2002 and record numbers by 2003–04. There may be some slippage but the aim is to ensure a significant change in the number.
Even in the Metropolitan Police Service, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which has had severe problems, numbers of recruits are rising. The latest increase in London allowance is intended to help address difficulties in recruiting officers to work in London. The Metropolitan Police Service has also been reviewing its recruitment procedures and is making changes. That should help to make the recruitment processes more effective.
In June last year, the Home Secretary accepted the recommendation of the Police Negotiating Board for a rise in London allowance from 1st July 2000 for new recruits and for officers recruited on or after 1st September 1994—post-Sheehy officers—who were not in receipt of housing allowance. The purpose of that was to help the Metropolitan Police Service to
758
deal with its recruitment problems. Officers recruited before 1st September 1994 who are in receipt of either rent or housing allowance receive a total London weighting and London allowance of up to £2,724. Officers in the Metropolitan Police Service recruited on or after 1st September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance receive a total London weighting and London allowance of £6,051. We have had to correct what I believe was one of Michael Howard's biggest blunders in implementing Sheehy, a point with which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, probably agrees.
In recognition of the particular recruitment difficulties, the Metropolitan Police Service has suffered and as a result of working with it to overcome them we have introduced free rail travel for Metropolitan Police officers. That initiative, which comes into effect on 14th February, provides free standard-class rail travel to serving officers within a 70-mile radius of London upon production of a warrant card. It has a crime-fighting benefit and the annual cost of £2.5 million will be met from central funds. I believe that to be a good and sound investment. In addition to improving recruitment and retention in the Metropolitan Police area, free travel will, I am sure, encourage more officers to use the railways and have an impact on reducing the fear of crime experienced among passengers.
Many noble Lords referred rightly to the decline in police morale. There is no single measure, no indicator, of police morale. In any service one will find some people who are happy about their work and others who are less happy. It happens in politics so it must happen in the police service. The number of people leaving an occupation can be taken as an indicator of morale. Total wastage from the police service compared with other organisations is very low: 5.2 per cent, 4.8 per cent and 4.7 per cent in the past three years. It is lower than at the outset of our administration. The 2000 labour turnover survey of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reported a wastage rate of 18.3 per cent for all employees in 1999. The number of resignations from the police service—0.8 per cent, 0.9 per cent and 1 per cent in the past three years—remains very small. Days lost to sickness may also be an indicator of morale. In 1996–97, the average number of days of sickness per police officer was 12.8. That declined to 11.55, or by 1.25 days per officer by 1999–2000. That is a valid indicator.
As regards morale over time, in 1994 screaming headlines appeared in the Police Review:
"Low morale over reform, says survey",
with leading members of the federation and the service saying that they thought morale was going through the floor. A survey then showed that 80 per cent of officers said morale had been adversely affected by the Sheehy proposals and more than half of the officers expected crime in their areas to get worse over the next 12 months.
I could spin out before the House a whole range of quotes made at that time about the deterioration in support for the police and the negative reaction to the

759
plans which were then being forced on the service by Mr Howard as a consequence of the Sheehy report. However, one powerful recollection clearly stuck in my mind; that is, the Metropolitan Police Federation meeting which had to be moved from its original venue at a London hotel to Central Methodist Hall because an unusually large attendance was expected. That attendance was expected because its members were so dissatisfied with the actions of the government of the day. I believe that morale is an issue and will continue to be so. But we are putting in place measures which are directed to reversing any decline in morale which has taken place perhaps over a longer period.
I want to spend some time examining violent crime in our society because that is important. Lessons will be learnt from the tragic murder of Damilola Taylor which shocked the nation. As a government we have for a number of years taken forward a range of initiatives to tackle violent crime. Probably the best picture of the trend in violent crime is the British Crime Survey (BCS) which was instigated in the early 1980s by the Conservative government. That survey measures crimes against people who live in private households. Although the 2000 BCS showed a recent encouraging fall in people's experience of crime, there is no room for complacency. Over the past 20 years, both the BCS and crime figures recorded by the police show a rising trend in violent crime. According to the BCS, violent crime has risen by 50 per cent since 1981. Figures reveal that violent crime reached its peak in 1995. Since then the survey has shown a 17 per cent drop in violent crime between 1995 and 1997 and a further decline of 4 per cent between 1997 and 1999.
Although the latest recorded crime figures for the 12 months to September 2000 show an 8 per cent increase in violent crime—they are measured differently—encouragingly, the rate of increase has been reduced from 16 per cent in the first quarter to 2 per cent in the last quarter of that timeframe. The reasons for the long-term increases are complex, but are likely to include, quite rightly, changes in public attitudes, particularly in terms of reporting matters such as hate crimes, domestic violence and so on, and police recording practices.
It is simplistic to say that society is more violent now than 20 years ago. In April 1998, there was a change in the practice of recording crime. Harassment, assault on a constable and common assault were introduced as recorded crime categories. The figures for reported crime for September 2000 include an increase of 11 per cent in cases of harassment, including racially aggravated harassment. They now represent 14.4 per cent of the total of 716,500 cases of all violent offences reported in the past 12 months. There is a determined effort to encourage the reporting of racial harassment, homophobic offences and domestic violence. Furthermore, the BCS 2000 noted that part of the increase in violent incidents might be due to increased willingness by respondents to mention those incidents to interviewers; in other words, the sensitisation of people to crime. Although there is still likely to be under-reporting of domestic violence, attitudes are changing.
760
The latest published crime statistics for the 12 months to September 2000 show a fall in overall recorded crime of 12,800 offences, or 0.2 per cent, compared with the previous 12 months. Against that overall drop, the number of violent crimes (comprising violence against the person, sexual offences and robberies) has increased by 8 per cent. That is half the previously published rate of increase. The largest percentage increases within the category of violence against the person related to harassment, assault on a constable—on which the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, commented—and common assault. The most recent figures (until September 2000) show a rise of nearly 21 per cent in recorded cases of robbery, following a much smaller increase of 6 per cent in 199899, and, interestingly, a 13 per cent fall the previous year. It may be that those crimes are being reported to the police to a greater extent than previously, especially by 16 year-olds, and that a rise in the number of mobile phone thefts accounts for some of that increase. Perhaps that is one of the disbenefits of the expansion in the mobile phone market.
In October 2000 the Met reported that 17 per cent of robberies were mobile phones only. Mobile phones were targeted in snatch offences (44 per cent), pick-pocketing (22 per cent) and other theft (33 per cent). Suspects and victims of street crime where only a phone is stolen are also younger than in the case of other street crime. In cases where only phones are stolen, 14 and 15 year-olds account for over 20 per cent of victims. That is a very worrying feature of that crime.
Analysis of Metropolitan Police crime statistics reveals that a large surge in mobile phone thefts occurs during the period between 3.45 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. when children get out of school. We are taking action with the mobile phone industry to tackle that specific problem. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary only recently met senior representatives of the mobile phone industry to develop practical strategies to combat the problem.
The recorded crime figures have shown an increase during the 1980s and 1990s in sexual offences, although there is a welcome but very slight fall in the latest figures. In the past two decades, homicide offences, which account for less than 0.1 per cent of all violent crime, have been at a lower level, but the cost of violent crime is now estimated to be about £21 billion, or two-thirds of the total cost of all crimes against individuals.
There is much more that we could say on the subject. As a government we are determined to cut the level of violent crime as much as possible, to reduce the fear of violent crime and to ensure that individuals and communities are protected and safe. That was why on 10th January 2001 we set out a comprehensive strategy and action plan to combat violent crime together, which no government have previously done. I believe that we are to be congratulated on approaching it in that coherent, cohesive way and on providing a strategy which has real long-term benefits.

761
We are improving support for victims and witnesses of violent crime and helping to mitigate fears of crime and to reduce the further risk of it. As we have made clear in the past, we are committed to ensuring that violent offenders are punished effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made great play of that point. We have new measures which are designed to speed up the criminal justice system—we believe that justice delayed is justice denied—and to tackle persistent young offenders, ensuring that they are brought to justice more rapidly.
Tackling the causes of violent crime is a key element in our strategy, and in that regard the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about poor parenting is apposite. Therefore, we have a strategy to deal with economic hardship, family disruption, truancy and school exclusion, alcohol misuse and mental illness. I believe that in the longer term all these measures will make an important contribution to reducing crime and ensuring that we live in a happier and more contented society.
It would be remiss of me if I did not say something about Macpherson. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that that was one of the largest contributory factors to the decline in police morale. I believe that Macpherson was a watershed; and it certainly provided a challenge to the police service. The 70 recommendations of the report will be long-term challenges to the police and many other public services, but they are ones which they should rightly work through. Some members of the police service may have found a number of those recommendations difficult to live with, but I believe that in the longer term they will help us to create a police service that reflects our multi-racial society and responds to the concerns of many people who believe that they do not enjoy an equal and fair police service because they come from ethnic minorities. Although Macpherson, quite rightly, focused on the incompetence of the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence, the report is a challenge in the right direction.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate. I regret that I have not had the opportunity to deal with all of the many points raised during the debate. I have tried to pick up some of the points during my speech which I hope noble Lords have found helpful.
The Government came into office at a time when many had given up on crime. The previous administration had seen a doubling of crime. Crime here was rising faster than in any other western country; the number of convictions had fallen by one-third; violent crime had risen by 166 per cent; and the chances of being a victim of burglary had risen from 1 in 32 to 1 in 13. We are addressing all of those issues. I believe that we have made consistent progress and have been successful in tackling crime. Crime is down and will continue to decline if we attack it with the cooperation and support of the police service, the public and crime and disorder partnerships.
762
There have been difficulties with police numbers, not least within the Metropolitan Police area. But they are now going in the right direction—444 extra police officers over and above those in place between March and September 2000. I believe the figures will continue to rise. With that increase in police numbers and all the other important and supportive measures we have put in place to deal with hi-tech crime—DNA and introducing and supporting CCTV screens—the public will be encouraged to the view that the Government are determined to tackle crime not just now but for the future. For all those reasons, while I thank the noble Lord Tebbit for introducing the debate, I believe our Government should be supported in their crime and law and disorder programme.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long from the pleasures of hearing my noble friend Lord Campbell on the subject of the Parliamentary Referendum Bill. I thank all those who took part in the debate this afternoon and, most notably, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He sat through the afternoon ever still in his seat, even at the risk of deep-vein thrombosis, although he seemed to get over that in the past half hour or so.
We have enjoyed a good-natured and well-informed debate. All my noble friends made excellent speeches. I have not heard quite so much common sense from the Lib Dem Benches ever in my life before. There have not been too many wild claims made, other than that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, who tried to indict me as a staunch supporter of the government of my right honourable friend John Major. I plead not guilty. There were no wild calls for throwing money at the problems; and we had few recriminations.
There were a few exchanges of dubious statistics. The Minister got the numbers of police slightly wrong. My figures show that during the time of the government of my right honourable friend John Major they actually fell by 469. He had a somewhat larger figure. I hope he will check his statistics. He was also a little wrong with another figure, although the figures were changed recently in an amended Answer from his department. In the first three years of his government the numbers fell by 2,500.
The Minister glossed over the current attitudes towards morale, going back a decade or so to find some incidents of bad morale. I direct him towards the House Magazine of 18th December last year in which the chairman of the Police Federation said:
"Morale is the worst I have ever seen it".
We had some notable speeches, not least from my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Portsmouth. All spoke of the causes of crime. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew rightly said that there has been, through the agency of television, a numbing down of our ability to be shocked by violence. I say to the right reverend Prelate that perhaps there is some kind of inverse relationship

763
between—-the happy-clappy tendency call it—the number of bums on pews on Sundays and our need for the numbers of police officers on Fridays and the rest of the week.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could be more specific even at this late stage. I am tantalised by his elusiveness, not for the first time.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, there is a relationship there; perhaps we shall explore it later.
Several points have emerged: first, the need to resolve the pension issue; secondly, the possibility of a Royal Commission on the police; and, thirdly, the quality of the management of the police service. I am always more impressed by the performance on television of Army officers who have been through Sandhurst than of many senior police officers, although I am always immensely impressed by the quality of the police officers—constable, sergeant and the ranks—directly working on the issues of crime. We might bear that in mind.
I still do not know why Her Majesty's Government have spent so much time reversing the rising trend of police numbers. They reduced them for three years and are now battling to get them back to where they were. But if what has been said today by all sides of the House has been heard by the police service, it will give them some encouragement and a reason to feel that morale should improve in future years. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliamentary Referendum Bill [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill would restore to Parliament the freedom of the entitlement to resolve that a referendum be called on provisions of Bills which substantially affect the constitution. This entitlement was removed by Section 101(2)(a) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act which inhibits any referendum triggered by Parliament despite the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, my erstwhile noble friend, said from the Opposition Front Bench at the Report of that Bill that it would be wrong if the Government alone could trigger referendums. There was some discussion as to the trigger mechanisms for referendums, but no alternative to that proposed by the Bill was suggested—or has as yet been suggested. The broad sense of the House on Report and Third Reading was that Parliament should not be inhibited from calling a referendum.
The Bill reflects Conservative Back-Bench and Cross-Bench amendments moved on Report and Third Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The amendments were supported by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, the noble
764
Lord, Lord Chalfont, and on Third Reading by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who sent a note to say that he much regretted that for an urgent reason he could not attend to speak today. In winding-up the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on Third Reading said that these amendments raised matters of considerable importance to which this House would no doubt return.
The Bill is an enabling measure which acknowledges the supremacy of another place and can only function with the agreement of both Houses if so advised. The Bill involves no amendment to the Parliament Acts or to the Rules of Procedure of either House. It envisages a new dimension of comity as between the two Houses on safeguard of the constitution without derogation from the delaying powers under the Parliament Acts.
It is a short Bill. Clause 1 does not oblige your Lordships' House to accept the report of the Constitution Committee which has the remit. That is a matter to be confirmed on the date of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, which at the moment is in No Day Named. But any other Select Committee on which the remit would be conferred would be acceptable. The remit confers no power on the Constitution Committee or another Select Committee to recommend that a referendum should be called. That is a matter for your Lordships' House; as indeed is also the conduct of the referendum.
Clause 2 does not oblige another place to entertain a Resolution from your Lordships' House that a referendum should be called. But another place may approve, reject or amend it. Clause 3 acknowledges the supremacy of another place and confers legislative effect affording this new dimension of comity to seek agreement as between the two Houses if so advised. Clause 4 prohibits a referendum unless both. Houses agree. Clause 5 delays Royal Assent but leaves it open to the Government whether to proceed with a Bill the provisions of which have not been approved on a referendum. The other provisions are formal.
The Bill is rooted in and grounded upon the Cranborne/Addison doctrine, teaching that difficulties should be sought to be resolved by consensual accommodation, by ad hoc arrangements on a case-by-case basis, to enable the Government to have their business originally, but now, under the Bill, to serve as a measure of safeguard for the constitution. In your Lordships' House there is no obligation to accept the report of the Select Committee or to call a referendum. No obligation whatever is imposed on another place to seek or to reach agreement, without which no referendum may be called. No statutory, codified obligation is imposed by the Bill on either House. The height of the hurdle raised for the Government to surmount is wholly dependent upon the will of Parliament, as indeed it should be. The essential element of informal flexibility is retained.
In general, referendums are not to be favoured. They derogate from the authority of Parliament, as understood by Burke. They have been used as a tool of government to implement government policy with absolution from any responsibility for its

765
implementation. It is disputed whether as yet referendums have, de facto, become assimilated in our unwritten constitution, a matter on which your Lordships may well entertain divergent views. But the purpose of this Bill is not to derogate from the authority of Parliament. It is to enhance it. It is not to assist the Government to implement government policy, but to challenge aspects of government policy, reflected in a government Bill which substantially affects the constitution, albeit largely unwritten. As yet, assuredly, my Lords, there has been no de facto precedent for the type of referendum proposed by the Bill to seek to avoid erosion of the constitution at the behest of government.
In the light of scrutiny, ought not Parliament, if so advised, to have the freedom to resolve whether the people should be consulted on a referendum before Royal Assent to a Bill were to be sought? As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said at the Third Reading of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Bill, we have to consider how we can close what is presently an unclosed circle between Parliament and the electorate.
In gratitude to your Lordships, whose contributions to constructive debate shall command the utmost respect, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it falls to me to continue the Second Reading debate on the Parliamentary Referendum Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I start by expressing my pleasure in having this opportunity and acknowledging the experience and thought behind the Bill. My only regret—I have nothing to do with drawing up the speakers' list—is that once again I seem to be unable to react to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose contributions to constitutional debates I always enjoy and often agree with. However, I always seem to be forced to speak before him so that I cannot benefit from his contribution before it is my turn. But back to the Bill at issue.
Its intention is to make changes substantially affecting the constitution more difficult. I wholeheartedly agree that there should be the most thorough scrutiny of all those changes. The question is: how? I begin by quoting a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in a debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on 18th October 2000. He began by saying:
"I oppose the amendment".
I could say today that I oppose the Bill. He went on to say:
"I have always had a principled objection to referendums. The fact that they may be held has not shifted my principles. The fewer that we have, the better. In an ideal world we would not have them".—[Official Report, 18/10/2000; col. 1154.]
766
That is my view and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, say in introducing the Bill that in general referendums are not to be favoured.
When your Lordships discussed the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as an amendment to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on 27th November 2000, several seemed to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Therefore, I do not need to reopen or repeat the discussion. But when re-reading Hansard for that date I was struck by a certain mood of despondency—almost defeatism—which I do not share. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that,
"like it or lump it. referendums are with us".—[Official Report, 27/ 11/2000; col. 1148.]
It does not follow that one has to have them on a general category of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, if one is allowed to quote him in his earlier incarnation, spoke of his "suspicion" of referendums, which he had explained to your Lordships' House on earlier occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said:
"I … do not care much for referendums. However. I know that I am hopelessly out of date and it would be absurd for me to suggest that it is not a good path to do down. I believe in Parliament as the place to take decisions and convince the country. But that is an old man speaking, and I shall go no further on the point".—[Official Report, 27/11/2000; cols. 1149–50.]
Well, here is another old man speaking, who would, however, say, "Why not go further?"
It is true that the possibility of holding referendums is now open. It is also entirely right that, while discussing and debating the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, we should have considered the question of who could trigger them, and how. But just as we do not need to reject every statutory instrument simply because we have the right to do so, I do not believe that we have to use the tool of the referendum simply because it is available to us.
The reason for that is simple: I certainly believe that decisions made through deliberation in representative institutions—that is, in Parliament—are preferable to snapshot decisions which further contribute to what I am sometimes tempted to call a climate of throw-away politics in which political projects are adopted and discarded, just as many other things are adopted and discarded in the world in which we live.
I would apply this consideration even to constitutional matters—perhaps particularly so. Perhaps I may give two additional reasons why I believe that referendums are the wrong tool at this point. First, such matters arise surprisingly frequently. Very few Bills that we debate in this Chamber do not have a constitutional element: the Regulatory Reform Bill is full of constitutionally relevant issues, some of them extremely important; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act itself, along with the Government Resources and Accounts Act. One could easily draw up a long list to demonstrate how frequently such issues arise.

767
The second reason why I believe that referendums are an undesirable instrument in this connection is that quite often these constitutional issues are really rather technical, or at least they appear to be so. I shall follow my noble friend Lord Russell who in the debate last November stated that:
"For example, I could argue that the abolition of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was a matter of first-class constitutional importance, for it would allow the executive to make law without the consent of Parliament".
However, he went on to add that:
"I dread the thought of explaining the case for a referendum on that to the voters".—[Official Report, 27/11/00; col. 1160.]
No doubt one could form packages of constitutionally relevant or even important constitutional issues. No doubt one could from time to time extract from them certain principles. However, either way, it seems to me that the instrument of the referendum—the tool of the referendum—is a curiously unattractive and inappropriate tool with which to deal with them.
I said that I agree with the intention of the Bill. I also think that constitutional changes should be difficult. Moreover, I hope very much that we shall soon have a constitution committee which will have a role to play in this process. In my view, the constitution committee has a purpose rather similar to that of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Indeed, when members of the committee met colleagues from Australia, we were almost a little envious of the fact that they can examine and scrutinise Bills not only for delegated powers but also for constitutional propriety.
I certainly look forward to seeing reports produced by the constitution committee for your Lordships' House about the constitutional implications of Bills. Furthermore, I look forward to the debates which will be held in this House as regards its most important function—as a safeguard for the principles of the constitutional practice by which we live. If there were to be a written constitution—which incidentally I am not advocating, although I am sure that others on these Benches would do so—the whole question of the referendum would be posed anew. There would be a serious issue to discuss as regards whether such a constitution would need the support of the people in a way in which it cannot be given by representative institutions.
For the present, however, and for the foreseeable future, I believe that we already have the necessary instruments to deal with constitutionally relevant changes, especially once the constitution committee has been set up. For that reason, I hope—with much regret, because I appreciate the intentions of noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that this Bill will not be enacted.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, not for the first time are we indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. On this occasion he has caused noble Lords to face the problems which have come about through the advent of direct democracy to supplement our traditional system of indirect or representative democracy.
768
Until the 1970s, I think there was almost unanimous opinion that the referendum had and should have no part in our constitution. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said on 12th May 1999 in a debate on referendums:
"It is undeniable that referendums are now accepted as part of our political process".—[Official Report, 12/5/99; col. 1209.]
Indeed, there are a number of what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, may have described as "threatened" referendums on the agenda.
This is a matter which we ought to face and take seriously in order to work out the detail as far as possible, although I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that we badly need a constitutional committee. I would hope that one of its first tasks would be to work out generally whether referendums are suitable in our constitution and our parliamentary proceedings. We could then go on to deal with the nuts and bolts of procedure.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has had to fall out, because I was counting with some confidence on his advocating post-legislative referendums. As he is not here to do that, I feel exonerated from mentioning the matter further myself. However, his departure has brought me to undertake what is a privileged but humbling task; namely, that of following immediately the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. He brings an incomparable combination of experience and scholarship to these problems.
We must view what is proposed in this Bill—and, indeed, the issue of the referendum in our constitution generally—against recent developments. Far and away the most important development, to my mind, is the increasing ascendancy of the executive over the House of Commons, which has a profound impact on representative parliamentary government.
Secondly, in so far as the House of Commons can no longer adequately hold the executive to account and scrutinise its legislative proposals, the task falls to your Lordships' House if it is to be performed at all. On the other hand, the use of the Parliament Act almost as a routine in cases of differences between the Houses, makes Parliament unicameral, a one-Chamber parliament in which the executive is ascendant.
Thirdly, the high level of absentation and alienation on the part of the electorate is a weakening at the other end of our system of representative government.
Lastly, was it not rather extraordinary that the devolution Acts were submitted for referendum to Scotland and to Wales but not to the infinitely more numerous population of England, which was, of course, also affected by devolution? In connection with that, it was surely deeply disturbing that the Neill committee should have found the procedures in the Wales devolution to have been so unfair. That is a bitter word to use in relation to any part of our constitution.
In a recent debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, quoted Madison:
"The people are the only legitimate fountain of power".

769
That is very largely—although not wholly—true of the American constitution, but it is not wholly true of ours. However, the people are a legitimate fountain of power here, and if the representative stream becomes polluted, cloudy or turgid, surely it is sensible to have recourse to the fountain itself. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is doing us a service in bringing this matter before us.
The urgent question is in what circumstances constitutionally do we need or desire a referendum? I totally agree with the noble Lord that that is a matter on which we should take advice from the Constitution Committee. However, I would also add this. Reverting to what I said about the ascendancy of the executive and the way the Wales devolution was handled, it surely ought not to lie with the executive exclusively—or, indeed, I would say, at all—to decide on the timing and impact of a referendum.
When your Lordships in the previous Parliament considered the Swiss constitution, attention was drawn to the initiative: the people themselves can propose a referendum. If my memory serves, that is also a part of the constitution of California. We should not leave out of account the initiative and the recourse.
The second urgent matter for decision is how the referendum should be conducted; how it should be financed. That has been, to a certain extent, under consideration in relation to the Bill over the past year. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, guardedly said that your Lordships' House may make such provision as to the conduct of such referendum as may be deemed to be appropriate. The noble Lord was a famous soldier and a famous lawyer; that is undoubtedly a very guarded proposal, exposing no vulnerable flanks at all.
The final matter of great importance to be decided in relation to a referendum is who frames the question. It would be very unsafe to leave it to the executive. Scholars have turned up two clear examples in California—one relating to a social service and the other relating to nuclear power—in which the question was posed in a way that was, one is bound to say, deliberately misleading—or, at any rate, effectively misleading. So one of the matters to be determined under the aegis of the noble Lord's safe formula is who frames the question.
I have dealt with this matter generally because this is Second Reading. I do not imagine that the House will divide. I do not imagine that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will greet the Bill with great enthusiasm—it would surprise me if that was the view of the Government—but I venture to support the Bill's Second Reading.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I agree in part with his analysis, but I disagree with his conclusion. It is also an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. As he mentioned, this is not the first time that I have followed him and, I might add, it is not for the first
770
time that I agree with everything that he has said. My only concern was when he started to quote what I said in an earlier debate. I was a little worried that, if he went on, some of the points I wish to make this evening might seem remarkably familiar to your Lordships.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on bringing this Bill forward. He has been a doughty campaigner in pressing for referendums—or, rather, in pressing for a triggering mechanism that may make possible a referendum in certain circumstances. I also acknowledge his generosity of spirit in reminding me that the Second Reading of the Bill was scheduled for today and for encouraging me to put my name down to speak against it. I must confess that I did not need much encouragement.
Perhaps I may outline my objections to referendums and then identify particular problems with the Bill before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned, I have said before that I have a principled objection to referendums. Parliament is the deliberative assembly of the nation. Parliament should decide issues, be they large or small. To say that matters should be decided by referendum is to say either that Parliament does not have the intellectual competence to decide the issue or that it does not have the political authority to do so, or both. I do not accept either argument. I believe that Parliament is the competent, authoritative body to decide. This point was made forcefully by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in her first parliamentary speech as Leader of the Opposition in 1975. Parliament, she said, comprises a body of elected representatives, chosen by the people to discuss and deliberate on government proposals. Members of Parliament, she argued, could consider the interests of minorities and see how separate measures fitted into the whole. Referendums would undermine Parliament's position.
Furthermore, there are two practical arguments that bolster the case for Parliament deciding issues. The first was well put by the late John Mackintosh, speaking in the same debate as my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1975. A referendum, he said, perpetuates a confusion between government by debate, thought, reflection and decision in the House of Commons with a head count of the people. Reasoned debate in an informed House, he argued, would give way to a national vote, based on a national campaign which would not enjoy the same advantages. This is an important point. Parliamentary debate offers essentially an even playing field, with clear rules governing the operation of debate. We have tried to create clear— and fair—rules for referendums through the medium of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act but we have not been altogether successful. We have not solved the funding problem—in terms of ensuring an even playing field—and we have not fully solved the problem of bias in the wording of the question.
The second and related advantage to parliamentary deliberation is that the issue can not only be debated, but nuances can be explored and amendments offered. Reasons for rejecting a particular Motion or amendment can be advanced and new amendments

771
can be brought forward. This is all part of a reasoned, deliberative process. Referendums are different. They are essentially blunt tools and after the event we may have little idea why people voted as they did. Is a particular proposition rejected because the proposal went too far or because it did not go far enough? We do not know. If there is ambiguity in the question, we may not even be sure that the outcome is an accurate reflection of voters' views.
Furthermore, referendums do not offer the advantages that many claim. They are not necessarily ways of determining the views of voters on a particular issue. Referendums cannot bring agreement where none exists. A referendum is not necessarily any more able to resolve matters of conflict than is a vote in Parliament. Where there is not agreement, the losing side is often not willing to accept the result. Furthermore, questions can be ambiguous. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, touched on this point. I have called attention before to the problem of "mistaken votes"—that is, electors casting a vote contrary to what they thought they were voting for. Research in the United States has suggested that in some state ballots, particularly where voters did not hold strong preferences, the figure for those casting "mistaken" votes was between 10 and 20 per cent.
Nor are referendums quite such popular devices as supporters may believe. Although people, when asked, will favour the use of referendums, they do not follow through by actually taking part in them when they are held. Turn-out in referendums tends to be lower than in elections of candidates to public office. That applies elsewhere. It also applies within the United Kingdom. Turn-out in the last general election was far higher than in the referendums in Scotland, Wales and London. In Wales, half the voters stayed at home. In London, the vast majority of voters stayed at home.
Nor are referendums as much in use elsewhere as may be thought. We are not out of step with other countries, because there is nothing to be in step with. Some countries hold referendums on a regular basis, some hold them on an irregular basis, and some do not hold them at all. Switzerland is the world leader for holding referendums. According to the book, Referendums around the World, edited by David Butler and Austin Ranney, there have been over 800 national referendums held in the history of the world; about half of those have taken place in Switzerland. Switzerland is the exception. There is no common practice elsewhere and no particular trend. To quote Butler and Ranney, at page 6:
"To carry conviction, referendums have to be orderly affairs, conducted under accepted rules. But no two countries have identical electoral systems, and none have identical regulations for the conduct of referendums. The laws governing the organisation and finance of Yes and No campaigns and the format of the ballot paper vary, as does the significance attached to the result".
There is thus nothing to build on in terms of practice elsewhere; nor should we build on what has happened in the United Kingdom. The fact that we have held a number of referendums, under different conditions, is no argument for holding more. My noble friend's Bill is designed as a trigger for holding referendums. That
772
trigger might not be activated, but it could be, and the assumption is that it would be. I do not want to do anything that would facilitate the holding of referendums.
I end by drawing attention to particular problems with my noble friend's Bill. Ironically, some of the problems are such as to undermine the likelihood of the Bill having the effect that my noble friend intends. Given that, I should perhaps not mention them too loudly. However, as I suspect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is likely to mention one of them, I thought I would get in first.
If my noble friend intends this Bill to act as a restraint on government, he will need to replace subsection (2) of Clause 7. Otherwise. even if this Bill is passed, I doubt whether the measure will ever be brought into force. Also—I suspect that this is the point that the Minister will make—it still leaves tremendous scope for imprecision and argument. My noble friend has sought to address some of' the problems identified during our consideration of the political parties Bill, but I am not sure that he has solved them. My noble friend's Bill does not foreclose the possibility of other Bills being brought forward to provide for referendums on other issues; nor does it prevent a measure being brought forward to provide for a referendum on a measure that the constitution committee has decided does not substantially affect the constitution. All this Bill does is, if anything, give the constitution committee a fast-track procedure. As such, it may be described as a soft, rather than a hard, Bill in providing for referendums, but—in that it does not limit their use or address the problems I have identified—I regard it as just as objectionable as a hard Bill.
As I have stressed, my principal objection to referendums is essentially one of principle. I suspect that on the sort of issues on which referendums may be held, the result may well be in the direction I would wish it to be. But that is beside the point. I am opposed to referendums as such.
Finally, picking up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, if we believe that Parliament is not doing its job in calling government to account, that is a case for strengthening Parliament. It is not a case for inviting it to abdicate its responsibilities.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I shall speak briefly, because I believe that the legal implications of the Bill are best dealt with by constitutional lawyers and not by laymen. My reason for taking part in the debate is that I should be inclined to support any initiative that seemed designed to protect the constitution from meddlesome change. It was Horace Walpole who said:
"Everybody talks of the constitution but all sides forget that the constitution is extremely well, and would do very well, if they would but let it alone".
Whatever may be the views of noble Lords on the virtues of the referendum as a political instrument—and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made an

773
impassioned intervention on the subject—I shall make no comment save to say that the referendum is with us as a political instrument. The other point is that it is only a part of the spirit and intention behind the noble Lord's Bill. Behind the instrument of the referendum there is a principle that I believe to be important. It is one to which we should give serious thought, and we should be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to our notice.
I take it to be a matter of common ground that when this Bill refers to legislation that substantially affects the constitution, we are speaking of the constitution as it relates to the Crown, the composition and powers of Parliament and, most importantly, what has come to be known as,
"the liberty of the subject"—
an important part of any constitution.
A constitution—and I believe that ours does this—defines the ways in which the Government's decisions are made and enforced; and the limitations upon such enforcement. We are rightly said to have in this country a constitutional executive whose activities can be checked, challenged and supervised by peaceful and permanent machinery. In such a society, any Act, including a Bill of the kind adumbrated by the noble Lord, which contravenes those checks upon the executive can be said to be unconstitutional.
I have a feeling that in the interests of modernisation and other buzz words of modern thinking, some of those checks on the executive are falling into disuse and are even being deliberately ignored. I fully accept that there is no doubt that constitutional law can be changed, amended or abolished like any private law. There is no field in which Parliament is forbidden to legislate. I should like simply to mention here the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about the supremacy of Parliament and its authority in such matters.
One of the points that I should like to raise is the fact the Parliament has lost a great deal of its authority and continues to do so. It is often subject to the pressures of the executive to an extent that I believe to be undesirable. In my view, as a result of that, we embarked upon the partial reform of your Lordships' House. It was a significant constitutional change, the full implications of which have yet to be fully realised. I often wonder what would have been the result if that Bill had been the subject of a referendum.
Of course, constitutional lawyers must always bear in mind the changing habits and culture of the society in which they live. The constitution is much more than its laws, and significant alterations to the constitution can be justified by custom and habit alone. So, in speaking of the constitution, we must always take account of current political practice and the day-to-day working of political institutions; in other words—this will come as no surprise to your Lordships—the constitution must be flexible. It cannot be engraved in tablets of stone and never changed.
774
Yet, at the same time—and this is why I have risen to my feet to make a very brief intervention this evening—we must guard against the hubris of any executive power that seeks to use democratically elected parliamentary majorities to make fundamental changes to our constitution. I believe that there is great danger of that happening. It is for that reason that I am attracted to the provisions of this Bill which, as I understand it—I trust rightly—seek to place the last word on changes to the constitution where it belongs: in the hands of the people, whose life and liberty depend upon the very existence of a strong and inviolable constitution, whether written or not. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly said, this emphasis upon the role of the people in the preservation of the constitution and the relevance of the constitution is perhaps more powerfully evident in the United States constitution than it is in our own.
Not surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned Edmund Burke. It has been my experience that there is scarcely no aspect of political philosophy upon which Edmund Burke did not have something valuable and profound to say. I shall close my brief remarks with his comment on the dangers of an overweening and over-powerful executive. Corrupt influence, he said, is the perennial spring of all disorder, it takes away,
"vigour from our arms, wisdom from our councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable parts of our constitution".
It is with those words in mind that I support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway with his usual ingenuity in drafting. The arguments that I wish to use in support of him very much follow the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
In this Parliament we have seen many important Acts that have changed our constitution. We have Acts changing the government of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We have Acts changing our voting procedures and we have the Human Rights Act. I do not wish to argue the merits of these Acts. I hope that they will be beneficial for the United Kingdom. But there is no doubt that they add up to a revolution in our constitution. Many of them will be irreversible, unlike many other Acts that can be repealed by an incoming government, if Parliament agrees.
We are now faced with exactly the same parliamentary procedure for Bills concerning major constitutional matters as for minor technical legislation. There was a very strong convention in another place until recently that Bills concerning the constitution were always taken without guillotine Motions and all aspects were taken on the Floor of the House, rather than in Standing Committee. These were not Standing Orders; they were conventions.

775
They have now been overridden without the agreement of the Official Opposition. So we are now faced with exactly the same procedure for minor Bills as for Bills of major constitutional importance. That seems to me to be a disturbing development.
If one looks at the constitutions of many countries with written constitutions—for example, most Commonwealth countries, the United States, and others—one finds that there is almost invariably a higher hurdle for Bills changing the constitution: possibly a two-thirds majority is required or a referendum. But we have none of those safeguards at all in our Parliament. It seems to me that the lessons we have learned, especially in this Parliament, show that, as far as concerns constitutional Bills, our parliamentary procedures are weak and lack adequate safeguards to ensure effective scrutiny. They can allow governments, no matter what their political colour, to rush through major changes without adequate scrutiny in either House of Parliament.
What can be done about the situation? I am delighted that your Lordships have agreed to set up a Constitutional Committee. I have tabled an Unstarred Question, which I hope will fall due for debate very soon, to consider the role of that committee. I hope that all noble Lords who have spoken this evening will speak also in that debate.
I turn now to my noble friend's Bill. I am not terribly keen on referendums either. It seems to me that the concept fits ill with our idea of representative government and the sovereignty of Parliament. But constitutions evolve and circumstances change. The reality is that we have been using referendums recently for a whole series of reasons. Of course there are problems involved. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed: who frames the question?
We now have some ground rules on the statute book. I do not believe that they are entirely satisfactory, but they are at least a move towards trying to ensure that, if we do have referendums, they are framed correctly. Life moves on in that regard. Although I have some reservations about my noble friend's Bill, it seems to me that we have now reached the stage where we shall use referendums. If we are to use them, I can think of no better subject to put to the judgment of the people than Bills which change the constitution of our country.
8.40 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that we have had a constitutional revolution over the past four years. I think it is fair to point out that that constitutional revolution was promised by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the committee chaired jointly by Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan before the election—the Cook/Maclennan committee, which spelled out what we would set our hand to if, either separately or collectively, we had a majority in the Commons after the 1997 election. In that way the constitutional
776
revolution of which the noble Lord talked was put fairly and squarely to the British people in a proper way before the 1997 election.
That does not mean that the outcome and the consequences of that revolution have not brought new challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right about that. The concern about the power of the executive, particularly in terms of civil rights and the rights of the individual within our constitution, is a proper one. My research is totally unscientific. I believe that if there had been a referendum on reform of the House of Lords, people would have voted to keep this place and abolish the other place. That does not give me too much pleasure because I am worried—as I think many people are—about the low esteem in which another place is at present held. I shall return to that in a moment.
There is always a certain excitement for a Liberal Democrat Front Bench speaker, particularly when he knows that one of our more independent minds such as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, or the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, will speak, as to whether their speeches and my speech will be close in terms of content. I am delighted to say that on this occasion I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said.
Like many who are steeped in the parliamentary tradition, I am extremely suspicious of the use of referenda. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that it was not until the early 1970s that we started to toy with referenda. I was present at an historic meeting. Noble Lords may know that in my chequered career I was an official of the Labour Party. I was present at the meeting of the national executive held in the early 1970s when it discussed how to handle the complete split in the party over membership of the Common Market—Mr Heath having successfully negotiated entry—and how the party would hold itself together in the face of that split. The ever ingenious Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn put forward the idea of holding a referendum. It is interesting to note that at that meeting he could not find a seconder for the idea, so alien was it at that stage to the national executive. But, of course, four years later, the then Labour government held a referendum, not for any great constitutional reason but on account of the matter that had given the national executive such difficulty; namely, the complete split in the party over Europe and how to keep the party together.
I sometimes think that in future PhDs will be written on the career of Mr Wedgwood Benn and on his impact on the constitution and whether it was, on balance, good or bad. In the case I mentioned I believe that his impact on the constitution was undoubtedly bad. I believe that the use of referenda as it has emerged over the following 30 years has been one of the weakening devices used on Parliament. As has already been pointed out, it is a device of dubious authority. The turn-outs in the devolution referenda were very low. Let us be frank: referenda are the last refuge of politicians who want to cop out of making a decision. Over the past 200 years we seem to have—

777
this is why I referred to the Cook/Maclennan committee—managed to extend our franchise, give votes to women, reform the Lords and, indeed, adopt the European Act on human rights, all without the need to hold referenda. The fewer referenda we have, the better.
As has been pointed out, some countries embrace referenda. California has been mentioned, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out that there have been problems there. As regards party policy—I discovered, much to my relief, that we have a party policy on such matters—there is great emphasis on the responsibility of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House and on giving a fully reformed House of Lords particular responsibility for safeguarding the constitution. But until that reformed House of Lords is in place, we would be reluctant to see any automatic trigger mechanism for referenda. Indeed, as I have said, what we would rather see is a recognition that the executive has become over powerful; that the ascendancy of the executive, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred, is a danger, but that our task and our priority should be to urge reform, particularly in another place, to strengthen the scrutiny of Parliament.
We need to emphasise particularly the fact that referenda would enhance single issue politics at the expense of party politics. As I say, it would weaken the authority of Parliament, making whatever decisions Parliament took always subject to a second appeal to the wider electorate. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who pointed out that often the results of referenda are not accepted anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is not present tonight, but he constantly denies the outcome of the 1975 referendum which revealed a two to one majority in favour of entering the Common Market. He says that the wrong question was asked, or the wrong information was given, or the then government used an unfair advantage.
Like my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, I am afraid that I cannot wish the Bill well. I wish the thinking behind the Bill well. Certainly we would not break with convention by trying to divide the House. We believe that the issues that have been raised are important and need to be dealt with as we consider the responsibilities of a reformed House of Lords. But until that happens, we hope that referenda remain a last refuge of scoundrels and, therefore, remain as a curious constitutional device that flourished briefly at the turn of the century but then was left to gather dust while Parliament took on its real responsibilities in a representative democracy.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I offer my thanks to my noble friend. I believe that he has done a service to the House in bringing forward the Bill.
I begin by saying a little about the context in which the Bill is published. I believe that the debate fits into a series. It follows the debates on the Parliament Acts
778
initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and on the Salisbury doctrine, initiated only last week by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
The common threat is that Members of your Lordships' House, across all parties, are saying that since 1997 the balance of power in this country has been shaken. This House, rightly or wrongly, has been altered, making it, in the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, "more legitimate" and giving it more "authority". The other place has seen its procedures "modernised" so as to increase still further the grip of the executive on that part of Parliament.
This is not a process that is unique to this Government but, sadly, they have carried it to previously undreamed of levels. It is they who have set aside the historic balance of the constitution. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. In our debate on the Salisbury convention last Wednesday, he said:
"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".— [Official Report, 24/1/01; col 286.]
The noble Lord was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in a typically challenging speech. He said:
"If the government are to be made to listen to us, we should have fewer, rather than more, restrictions on how … we can exercise our powers".—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 281]
This sense that the executive leviathan in this country needs to be shackled is growing, and it is common to thoughtful people of all parties. Our party has pledged itself to the cause of a strong Parliament. We believe that Parliament is the only place where not only over-mighty governments can be held in check but also over-mighty bodies throughout our society and even over-mighty international forces too.
We will support no reduction of the powers of this place. We will support no changes in procedures that reduce our ability to hold the executive of whatever party to account. That is why we wish to develop the role of this House. That is why my noble friend Lord Strathclyde led the call for a new constitutional committee, which has now been set up. That is why in the new House we have abandoned the convention respected by my party in the old House not to vote against orders. That is why we have said that the Salisbury convention needs to be reviewed in changing circumstances. That is why we are sympathetic to this House having more opportunity to consider financial matters. That is why the Bill that my noble friend puts before us today raises questions of fundamental importance.
In the debate on the Parliament Acts initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, said—and I agree—that,
"the essence is to have a safeguard against the misuse or abuse of power in the House of Common".—[Official Report, 19/1/01; col. 1318.]
The noble Lord implied, as my noble friend's Bill proposes, that referendums might be a way of providing a further lock on major legislation that would alter the constitution of this country.

779
Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, although in varying degrees, I am not instinctively in favour of referendums. But we have to recognise that they are now an established part of our way of government. The Government have used them more frequently than any of their predecessors, although not in a way I would recommend for any government. In Scotland, Wales and London they have used pre-legislative referendums in which general principles already enunciated in the party's manifesto are put to the people. It was the Government who set the questions. They resisted clarification or separation of the questions. They allowed, and have entrenched in the recent Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, rigged referendum rules which allow one side to spend more than the other in a referendum. I do not believe that that is a proper way to proceed.
Pre-legislative referendums are no way to take the will of the people. The details of the legislation are not known and can be changed. The kind of debate that parliamentary scrutiny provokes has not taken place. They are nothing more than a tawdry way to seek to coerce Parliament and to cow it into not questioning the Bill that is later put before it.
What my noble friend proposes is something different. It is akin to the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, most recently in the debate last Wednesday, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and by several distinguished noble Lords during the course of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. I think of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Healey. It is proposed that once Parliament has considered a piece of legislation in detail there should be a mechanism within Parliament to press the executive to undertake a referendum to take the mind of the people before pushing a Bill to Royal Assent.
My noble friend also gives a special place to the new constitutional committee which we all hope and expect will play a valuable part in national affairs. The proposal does not seek, rightly, to give this House unilateral powers. That would be wrong, except in the unique case of an attempt to extend the life of Parliament. However, it would give this House immense moral authority—something that one would hope another place would find difficult to ignore.
A post-legislative referendum on a major constitutional question could—I stress "could"—have many virtues. It would ensure that the British people were aware of the implications of major changes planned in their name. It could be a way of addressing a deadlock between the two Houses on major constitutional questions. It could be a way of reinforcing the checks that this House can place on the elective dictatorship. It could also be a way of putting a break on major alterations in our constitution in the event of one House having been whipped to pass a Bill and this place threatened with the coercion of the Parliament Acts.
780
I think that there is an argument that major constitutional Bills should have to go through particularly onerous scrutiny. I am not yet certain of the case for post-legislative referendums before Royal Assent, as my noble friend suggests. But they are certainly far less spurious than the pre-legislative referendums that we have seen. And, if I may say so, they are less spurious than the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he said that a post-legislative referendum would,
"take away from the authority of Parliament. I believe that to be wrong".—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 298]
How one could put forward that argument for a post-legislative referendum and not for the pre-legislative ones for which this Government have had such a leaning is obscure. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will address that issue when he replies. The one gives the people a chance to vote on the considered views of Parliament. The other—dare I say it—is a populist device that can be thrown in the face of Parliament to restrict its room to alter what Ministers have proposed.
There are difficulties with the detail of what my noble friend has proposed. But the right place to explore those is in Committee. He has raised issues of profound importance in our evolving constitution. I look forward to further debates on the Bill as it proceeds through this House.
8.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The Government do not support it or think it an appropriate Bill. However, I agree that it raises a number of important issues which have been dealt with in an impressive and succinct debate.
I pick up the starting point to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred. This is part of a trio of debates over the past 10 days. We have had the Second Reading of the Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill. A week ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, introduced a debate on the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention. We now have this debate. They are all about the powers of this House. Should there be referendums? In what circumstances? What should be the terms in which those referendums take place? Who should determine the question?
It is obvious from the Government's stance on other matters that we think that, from time to time, there is a place for referendums in the constitution. We believe that that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
However, we believe that the Bill is unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because there is nothing to prevent this House, on the advice of the Constitution Committee or on its own initiative, proposing, before the measure comes into force, an amendment to a Bill to provide for a referendum. I was confused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who appeared not to accept that what he was

781
describing already existed. It is open to this House to pass an amendment to prevent a Bill coming into force until there had been a post-legislative referendum. Such an amendment would then have to be considered by the other place. That would have the same effect as the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect, we are going adrift. Clause 101(2)(a) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 prohibits either House from resolving that there should be a referendum. It says that referendums must be ordained and called by the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understand it, having regard to parliamentary sovereignty, there would be nothing to prevent this House amending a Bill so that it could come into force only after a post-legislative referendum. If the noble Lord suggests that the Act that he referred to has entrenched provision, he is enunciating a new constitutional doctrine.
Our second argument is that the Bill is inappropriate. By that I mean that it is wrong that this House should have such a power of initiative over the use of a referendum. Thus far, the use of a device that some still regard as alien to our constitutional arrangements—that feeling was reflected in the debate—has occurred only in response to government proposals for change. The Government have justified the use of the referendum on a case-by-case basis. We believe that that is the best approach. Specific legislation will enable a referendum to be held on the particular issue.
The approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is fraught with risk. First, there is a risk that this House and the Government will disagree on whether a measure is suitable for a referendum. The Government believe that the use of the referendum should be exceptional. Leading on from that and looking at the situation in a practical, realistic light, that can mean only a great likelihood of disagreement between the two Houses. The same could occur if this House inserted a clause in a Bill providing for a referendum, but I venture to suggest that a dispute in which this House had some special power of initiative, as the Bill implies, would be significantly more acute than one that arose from the normal legislative process. The Bill would give the House of Lords a special place. Although it says that the other place has to agree, it would give rise to a more acute constitutional issue than a simple disagreement over an amendment to a Bill.
Let us imagine that the Government place before Parliament a measure, foreshadowed in the party's manifesto, that has broad constitutional overtones but is not suitable, in their view, for a referendum. The House of Lords might take a different view on the appropriateness of a referendum and use the powers accorded under this Bill to resolve that there should be
782
one. If the other place then rejected that view, as Clause 2 would entitle it to do, where would we go from there? It would be a dead stop.
That brings us to the related issue of the Salisbury/ Addison convention. In the case of a major disagreement of principle over government legislation, the Government would argue that the Commons must have its way under the Salisbury convention. I beg leave to doubt that any government would act differently.
The House knows the noble Lord's response. He spelled it out last Wednesday in the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the subject of the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention. He said:
"The achievement of parity voting potential constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances which deprives the Cranborne convention as such of any justification today".—[Official Report, 24/1/01; col. 284]
As I understand it, the noble Lord believes that the House of Lords Act 1999 has changed everything, hence, unless I misunderstand him, if the other place and this House are in dispute, this House has the right to vote the measure down. That would leave the other place needing to rely on the Parliament Act, described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as a constitutional nuclear weapon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should correct this before there is a misunderstanding. The quotation that the noble and learned Lord gave is right. I am fully prepared to reaffirm it today. However, that does not mean that an updated version of the Salisbury convention, which the Royal Commission recommended, ought not to be arrived at and agreed by consensus. I certainly do not adhere to and have never expressed the view attributed to me that, by and large, the Government ought not to have their business.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am slightly confused. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, explicitly said that what he called the Cranborne convention had gone. He did not say what should take its place, except that, in principle, the Government should have their business. We have no idea what the position of a manifesto Bill would be. Is that part of the Government's business? Does it go wider or not so far as the Salisbury/Addison convention? If the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were to be adopted, we would be left in a total constitutional limbo.
I return to my earlier point. If one follows what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, one is left with the need to rely on the Parliament Act—the constitutional nuclear weapon, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described it both in the debate started by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and that initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The reason why the Parliament Acts attract such a

783
dramatic image is that their use has been rare. That has been true because the House has accepted the Salisbury convention, going rather further—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must be oblivious to recent political history. The Parliament Acts have been used quite promiscuously and routinely on such matters as the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, and one other Bill. I am so sorry. If the noble and learned Lord has finished, I shall continue with my remarks. The Parliament Acts have not been kept in reserve for major matters as a nuclear weapon or nuclear strike; recently they have been used routinely when the Government have wanted to get their way following a difference of opinion between the two Houses.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for talking to the Clerk while he was speaking. I was trying to find out the number of occasions on which the Parliament Act has been used in recent years. The word that the noble and learned Lord used in his speech was "habitual". I strongly contest that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I believe that I said "promiscuous" rather than "habitual".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said "promiscuous" then and, in the course of his speech, "habitual". With respect, I suggest that that is an over-dramatic description of the number of times that the Parliament Act has been used. I do not know the precise number of occasions on which it has been used since 1st May 1997, but I have been prompted to say "twice".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, three times.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was not used in connection with the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. The noble and learned Lord may be right that it was three times, but let us assume it to be twice. It is hard to describe that as either "promiscuous" or "habitual". I prefer the description of the Leader of the Opposition in this House, which is that it has been used as a constitutional nuclear weapon.
If in future this House acted as though the Salisbury convention were no longer valid and rejected the philosophy of restraint that it has, in my view very wisely, accepted until now, assuredly the reaction from the other place to regular defeat applied to measures that have passed the House will be greater use of the Parliament Act.
Taking the views of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the obsolescence of the Salisbury convention together with the powers which his Bill proposes for this House, I would be genuinely concerned that the effect of the Bill would be to make disputes between the two Houses on issues of principle a good deal more likely. I cannot believe that it would be desirable for this House to seek to acquire powers
784
that might cause a clash with the government of the day on a point of fundamental principle over its legislative programme. Plainly, the Bill seeks an acquisition of power by this House.
As I have said before, I recognise that your Lordships could insert a clause into any Bill which would call for a referendum on the legislation before it came into law. That would be an available use of your Lordships' power provided that the clause did not constitute a wrecking amendment, as the noble Lord's own amendment at the Committee stage of the House of Lords Act was in practice, although, I accept, not in intent. However, this measure invites your Lordships to take special powers over a class of Bill and, moreover, one not defined in advance. This is becoming all too close to taking power which, in effect, queries the primacy of the other place. I cannot believe that that is a step which your Lordships would wish to take.
In summing up, the Government view the Bill as unnecessary and believe that, at worst, it may lead to clashes with the other place which could only be harmful in the long term. Therefore, for the reasons given, the Government oppose the measure.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been an interesting and good-humoured debate and I do not want to spoil its atmosphere by indulging in an argument at this hour of the night with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading, we will have ample opportunity to deal with the Minister's misunderstanding of the Bill's principle and effect and of my approach to the Salisbury convention. It would not be appropriate for me to deal with that matter tonight; I simply place my concern on record.
I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, whom I asked to come along and oppose the Bill, which he did awfully well. One cannot, at this hour of the night, or at any hour of the day, deal with what is called root-and-branch principled opposition, which is blind to argument. Trying to do so is a waste of time. I am fully content to leave the matter to the sense and composite wisdom of the House in due course; the House will take the decision.
There is a considerable distinction between the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who supports the principle of the Bill, and that of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who opposes it. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, took the point about the frequency of occasions on which provisions in Bills affect the constitution. I totally agree with him; he gave all of the examples that were in my mind and made an important point. But the noble Lord said that that frequency meant that one should not have a referendum or any such mechanism. I say quite the contrary: the terror, the danger and the absence of control mean that there must be a mechanism, and the only mechanism is a referendum. So one gets into a circuitous argument which, again, one cannot pursue at this hour of the night.

785
According to my scribbled note, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, thought that there was an automatic trigger mechanism for a referendum. With respect, that is a misunderstanding of the Bill's intention and, indeed, of its drafting.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for supporting the Bill's principle and for arguing that a safeguard needs to be provided. In view of the changes of procedure in another place, there are no adequate safeguards.
I respectfully ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that further debate may ensue on some of the matters that I have mentioned. That may perhaps allow for their constructive resolution.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
9.17 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and at the same time speak to the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000.
The proposed regulations will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. They will not apply to Northern Ireland, which has its own company registry that is responsible for setting its fees. Both of the orders were debated and approved on 24th January by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
The main effect of the regulations is to increase fees for microfiche products. The aim is to enable CompaniesHouse to match the revenue that it generates from that aspect of the public service that it provides with the costs of providing that service. The changes are necessary because many people are now taking advantage of the alternative electronic services that are now on offer. Demand for microfiche has declined substantially from the level that applied when fees for it were last changed two years ago. Demand is expected to continue to decline. The balance in the provision of services is therefore shifting rapidly.
In my explanation of the reasons for the changes, I shall concentrate on microfiche and related products, which cover the bulk of the changes. I will naturally be happy to respond to any questions that noble Lords may have on any individual items in the regulations.
Companies House has been an executive agency since 1988 and a trading fund since 1991. As a trading fund, Companies House must recover all the costs of
786
providing its services from fees. It must also aim to achieve a net return of 6 per cent on its assets on average taking one year with another.
Companies House must finance its running costs and future development programme from fees and charges and, so far as any major developments are concerned, from any reserves that have accrued from the previous levying of fees and charges. It must continue to invest in information technology to enable the provision of better and more up-to-date services. It also has regular operating outlay for staff salaries and accommodation, staff training, compliance, communication and marketing and so forth.
All that has to be funded from the revenue it raises. Those costs must be spread across the full range of Companies House products and services. Companies House will continue to allow easier access for electronic registration of statutory information. It will also enable the provision of company data in an increasingly wide range of electronic formats consistent with the Government's modernising ambitions.
In 1996 there was a general reduction in Companies House fees. That was made possible by the agency's success in significantly reducing its operating costs. Nonetheless it was necessary at that time to increase the price of the microfiche search because of reducing volumes. The cost of microfiche-based products was again increased for the same reason in 1998. This is because the cost of providing a microfiche service is substantial and essentially fixed. It means that as more customers switch from microfiche to the electronically-based ways of accessing company information, the unit cost rises.
The volume of microfiche searches has declined from 2 million in 1995–96 to well under 1 million last year (1999–2000)—a fall of over 50 per cent in five years. From 1.4 million at the time when fees were last adjusted, from 1st March 1999, the total number of microfiche searches dropped to under 0.7 million two years later. The decline is expected to continue in the coming year, 2001–02, to 500,000.
That is not something to be regretted. It is evidence of the introduction of new and better technologies. Nonetheless, the cost of producing a microfiche search is already £6.20 compared with the current fee of £5. So a loss is being made on that particular range of Companies House products.
Charges for microfiche and the broadly equivalent electronic alternative—a package of up to 25 documents delivered by e-mail—are currently the same. Each costs £5. Yet the process of generating microfiche for a database is a more complicated one. After electronic images are created, they are filmed and a large team of employees carefully cuts the film produced each day for all the documents registered the previous day and they are added to the individual company records. There is similar extra work when a microfiche search is requested. Instead of automatically downloading the information electronically, it is necessary for members of the information centre team to go to the physical fiche record, copy it and deliver it to the customer.
Maintaining the fiche library is an extra cost. Using it to deliver information on the day is similarly an extra cost. The effect of the fees regulations before this House will be to correct the balance by making microfiche bear more of its cost, with a £1.50 increase to £6.50. That will in turn allow Companies House to reduce the cost of electronic information by £1 to £4 for the key package. That is a 30 per cent increase to set against a 60 per cent decline in volume since last time. Nonetheless, it should allow Companies House to achieve something close to break-even on the provision of its microfiche services. Indeed, the House was warned of the likely increase in the price of microfiche products when the previous companies fees order was presented two years ago. Should the decline continue in line with present trends, further increases in the price of microfiche will be necessary quite soon in order to optimise recovery of the costs.
The overall effects on searchers of the information made available by Companies House will not be negative. The higher cost for microfiche will continue to be offset by the ever-expanding reliance placed on computerised information by Companies House customers. This is not only becoming more comprehensive and easier to access; it is also becoming cheaper.
Since 1998 customers have been able to obtain basic company information free from the Companies House website. Since October 2000 they have been able to purchase documents over the web using their credit card. That is something of a trailblazer so far as concerns the provision of government information. Increased demand for such services will lead to lower prices for conveniently accessible, high-quality data in electronic format. That will apply equally to bulk customers, for professional users of the Companies House subscription service, Companies House Direct, and to casual users via the Internet. Microfiche has served its purpose well. It will continue to be preferred by some people for some purposes for a little while yet. But it is now approaching the final stages of its product life.
Companies House intends to reduce the charges it levies for discretionary premium services for same day incorporation and change of name and is not seeking any increases for any of the electronic or bulk services. Companies House is decreasing the charges it sets administratively for electronic services. That decrease will be pitched at a level to achieve a net £2 million reduction in revenue at constant volumes. In doing so the agency is consciously playing a fuller part in the Government's modernising and "knowledge economy" agendas.
At this point I believe that it would be appropriate for me to stress that we are addressing those fees and charges established by regulations under Section 708(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Companies House makes extensive use of Section 708(5) for the setting of charges for its newer electronic services. It also does so for certain bespoke services, such as the provision of bulk information by means of image or data tapes to its major commercial customers. The flexibility of Section 708(5) is necessary for the pricing of new
788
products whose development costs and take-up may be uncertain or variable. None the less, Companies House brings the same concepts of cost recovery and avoidance of excessive return or cross-subsidy to those other services.
I turn to open-ended investment companies. Companies House registers and provides the public records for this type of corporate vehicle. The cost of providing microfiche records for such enterprises is precisely the same as that for companies since they are included in the unit cost measurement for all microfiche products applied by Companies House. Consequently, these amending regulations introduce equivalent fees for similar services provided by Companies House to those provided for companies.
In summary, Companies House fulfils a clear function of being the key statutory registry for companies in Great Britain. The agency has an enormously important role in information provision. Because of its newly-introduced world wide web company information service, it is now available at the touch of a button to anyone across the world. Lastly, in accordance with the undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General, I can confirm that in my view the regulations before the House are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that my explanation of the reasons behind the fee changes has been helpful to noble Lords. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House. Indeed, I am sure that the House is grateful for the full explanation of the two instruments. The only question I ask is why the Government or Companies House do not put microfiche out of its misery. Here, an old technology has become more and more expensive and is being run parallel to a new technology which is becoming cheaper. We are assured that we are within a few years of us all having Internet access. Instead of having this "dance of the seven veils', would it not be better to announce a finite cut-off from when microfiche will no longer be available? From what the Minister says, I doubt whether there would be many complaints about that.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the regulations. In a nutshell, they allow for a 30 per cent increase in the fees charged by Companies House for its microfiche-based information services. That said, I am bound to say that we on these Benches have a few slight reservations about the proposal. I therefore hope that the House will bear with me while I articulate one or two matters of concern.
As the Minister explained, the increased fees are predicated upon an analysis that demand for microfiche has declined substantially from when levels were last changed two years ago and that Companies House is increasingly offering more up-to-date

789
electronic services to its customers. Such arguments are perhaps persuasive. In terms—and the Minister made the point—they gel with the Government's stated desire to make the UK the best and safest place for e-commerce in the world. All good and well.
But while acknowledging the requirement that, where practicable, Companies House should avoid cross-subsidy of its activities, does the Minister accept that, to an extent, these proposals could have the effect of creating a form of digital divide? Why is it that the burdens of the declining demand for microfiche services should be imposed upon those who are obliged to continue to use them simply because they are small and do not have the sophisticated technology of larger operations?
I note that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in another place suggested that part of the reason for the increase in fees was to,
"fund future improvements and developments",
at Companies House, particularly in terms of investment in information technology. That is fair enough. Effective strategies in this area should result in significant reductions in terms of both manpower and cost. Can the Minister therefore explain the 10 per cent or so increase in staffing levels at Companies House since 1996–97? Can he give us an idea as to future projections of staffing levels at Companies House? Perhaps more significantly in this context, can the Minister tell the House how many Companies House documents are filed electronically and what percentage that represents of the total? Is it fully on track with the,
"target for all business to be capable of being transacted electronically by 2005";
or is the comment of the chief executive in his annual report statement that electronic filing,
"remains as yet little used",
a more accurate assessment of the situation? I am sure that the Minister will clarify those points and I look forward to his response.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their interesting comments, which can be taken together. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked why we do not put microfiche out of its misery immediately. The answer is that pricing where one has a falling demand and where one loads the fixed overheads on to the unit costs sharply pushes up the rate. It also gives every incentive, as it should, for people to move to the electronic alternative, which is cheaper and more effective. That is exactly the kind of pricing strategy one should have because it gives people a good incentive to move to a cheaper version but does so over a period of time.
790
That means that people have plenty of time to make alternative arrangements and move away from the older technology. That is why the measure does not contribute to a digital divide. This is the way in which the technology will go. It is cheaper for businesses to use and they should be moving rapidly in that direction.
As regards staffing levels, there is a huge expansion in the work of the registry office and it is rapidlyincreasing. The correct way to examine its efficiency is in terms of the unit cost of its operations. There is a 3 per cent annual reduction in that which it has been meeting. That is a satisfactory situation. In fact, there is a 40 per cent increase in its workload, which shows that it is doing a good job in improving its performance.
Finally, perhaps I may draw particular attention to Companies House's commitment to developing services which are efficient, economical and of high quality. The agency puts a good deal of effort into trying to establish the needs of its customers and uses such consultation and interaction with its customers as a basis for driving forward its evolving service offer. It aims to use the possibilities afforded by modern technology to create an environment for easier access for companies and individuals, whether they are delivering or obtaining information. It is that dedicated focus on customers which has led to Companies House being one of the few public sector organisations to be awarded the "Chartermark" on three consecutive occasions. It has also allowed Companies House to garner three significant awards in the wider business community for its on-line information service, Companies House Direct, in the course of the year 2000. I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000
9.35 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I spoke to both sets of regulations at the same time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission Report
  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission Report
  Naval Vessels Under Repair
  Naval Vessels Under Repair
  EU Military Operations and NATO Assets
  EU Military Operations and NATO Assets
  British Defence Industry Catalogue
  British Defence Industry Catalogue
  Hatfield Rail Crash
  Hatfield Rail Crash
  Royal Parks: Cleansing of Footpaths and Cycle-ways
  Royal Parks: Cleansing of Footpaths and Cycle-ways
  Internet Service Providers: Communications Data Provision to Police
  Internet Service Providers: Communications Data Provision to Police
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Control: Costs
  Asylum Control: Costs
  Asylum Seekers: One-Stop Services
  Asylum Seekers: One-Stop Services
  Immigration Act Detainees in Prison
  Immigration Act Detainees in Prison
  Robberies and Assaults: Assailants
  Robberies and Assaults: Assailants
  Illegal Immigrants: Estimated Numbers
  Illegal Immigrants: Estimated Numbers
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  New Criminal Offences
  New Criminal Offences
  Criminal Records Bureau: Charges
  Criminal Records Bureau: Charges
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Food Standards Agency Study
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Food Standards Agency Study
  Health Development Agency
  Health Development Agency
  HIV/AIDS: Public Education Spending
  HIV/AIDS: Public Education Spending
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Education Funding per Pupil
  Education Funding per Pupil