Sitting of 15 March 2001

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 22 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Higher Education
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the level of unit funding in higher education. [152549]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Good morning, Mr. Speaker. The Government are planning to spend £1.7 billion more on higher education in England over the six years to 2003–04. For the first time in more than a decade, there will be a real terms increase in the unit of funding per full-time student of 0.7 per cent. in 2001–02, with fully funded increases in student numbers over the following two years.
    Miss McIntosh: I welcome that answer, but will the Minister give us the true figures of unit funding? They reveal that unit funding has decreased for students because their numbers continue to rise. In the 1997–98 financial year, the unit cost was £4,850; it has now gone down to £4,770, with no prospect of it rising. What message does that give those who wish to enter higher and further education?
    Mr. Wicks: I do not agree with the hon. Lady's analysis. Unit funding will increase over the next three years, as I said, and by 0.7 per cent. in 2001–02. I understand the Opposition's embarrassment because when we contrast our record with that of the Tory years, we see that funding per student in higher education fell by more than £2,500, or 36 per cent., between 1989 and 1997. The Conservatives undermined the universities; we are investing in them.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend no doubt receives a lot of external advice on the funding of
    1168
    higher education. Has he yet had an opportunity to assess how much it would cost to endow the universities with a sum sufficient to generate their current level of income? Does he agree that if that were to happen, top-up fees for students would be inevitable?
    Mr. Wicks: I have not made the estimate, but Universities UK has. It has independently estimated the cost of the Tory endowment plans at £101 billion. We are not certain where that money is to come from—I do not know whether it is in the Tory spending plans—but, clearly, logic suggests that it would be through the introduction of top-up fees. While we have a fair student finance system, they have to become the top-up Tories.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Is not the real position that the Government are unable to defend their record over the past four years on the level of funding per student? In a Parliament, now is the time when one refers to the Government's record. The Government, rightly, say that in primary education student funding has increased, and is not that a good thing? The truth is that under this Government, despite their discredited tuition fee policy—charging students and making poor students poorer by abolishing the grant—the unit of funding has gone down.
    Mr. Wicks: I never know where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. The hon. Gentleman voted against the continuation of maintenance grants during the Report stage of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen because they do not like the truth. The Liberal Democrat education spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), said in March 1998:
    "We support the Government's proposal to end maintenance grants and replace them with income contingent loans as the fairest way of securing a greater contribution from students.—[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 995.]
    The hon. Gentlemen are now saying something different. Being a Liberal Democrat means never having to be consistent, except consistently in opposition.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinarily rich for the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to attack the Government on unit funding when the previous Government cut it savagely year on year? Neither of them had the grace to refer to the range of additional measures that this Government have introduced—opportunities of bursaries, access funding and so on—that add significantly to the welcome increase in unit funding that the Government have announced.
    Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Having secured the funding of our universities and having introduced a fair and efficient student finance system, the future challenge is to increase the numbers of our young people able to go to university, for which the Prime Minister has set a target of 50 per cent., and to ensure that those from backgrounds and communities with no previous experience of higher education have that opportunity. That is why my right hon. Friend has introduced the excellence challenge, with more than £190 million over the next three years and different ways,

    1169
    including summer schools, of enabling those children to have that opportunity of going to university. We are about quantity, while ensuring quality; but within that, our goal of equality is also crucial.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: May I invite the Minister to acknowledge that the inflation increase is really in his estimate of the cost of the Conservative proposals? It has risen from the estimate of £80 billion given by his noble Friend Baroness Blackstone at a meeting in the Palace earlier this week, to more than £100 billion. That suggests that his study of the Taylor report and our proposals has been less than comprehensive.
    In the light of that, let us turn back to the Government's stance. Will the Minister acknowledge that, after countless questions and letters, and even a full Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and me, he has still not given us the detailed figures that underpin his assertion that unit funding will increase over the next three years? Given that independent figures prepared by the Library show that, at best, the amount will be functionally static—therefore, a £10 per capita increase could not be reconciled with the Minister's assertion that the increase will be 0.7 per cent. per annum—will he come clean and give us the actual figure on unit funding that will benefit students?
    Mr. Wicks: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has received the figures in correspondence from me, but let me give the unit cost in real terms: in 2001–02, it is £4,800; in 2002–03, it will be a little more, but more or less £4,800; and it goes up to £4,817 in 2003–04. It is a real terms increase over those three years—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) makes a zoo-like noise, presumably to hide his embarrassment about quarrelling with us over the detail of our—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is saying, but then I never do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) quarrels with us about the details of our increase; he has nothing to say about the fact that, during the Tory years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"] Tory Members are saying "Ooh" because they are so embarrassed that, during the Tory years, the percentage declined by one third. They have nothing to say about that.
    Hon. Members: Ooh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind Ministers that they should not worry about the Tory years. Question Time is about Departments—that is what Ministers should worry about.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What evidence his Department has collated on the effectiveness of his literacy and numeracy strategies. [152550]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Before I answer the question, I should like to welcome the permanent secretary, Michael Bichard, to the Gallery and thank him for the enormous work that he has done at the Department for Education and Employment. Before—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not make reference to anyone in the Gallery.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am suitably reprimanded, Mr. Speaker.
    The national literacy and numeracy strategies have transformed the quality of teaching and have raised standards in primary schools throughout the country. The principal pieces of research into their effectiveness are the Office for Standards in Education reports on the first year of the numeracy strategy and the second year of the literacy strategy, published last November, and a report by the Ontario institute for studies in education, published last July.
    Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating schools in Hendon? Between 1997 and 2000, they achieved an overall improvement of 10 percentage points in English and 12 percentage points in maths. In one year, 1999–2002, Parkfield primary school achieved improvements in English of 26 percentage points and in maths of 24 percentage points, and is one of the 19 schools in Hendon to win a school achievement award today.
    Mr. Blunkett: My congratulations go to Parkfield and to all the schools that have been driving forward, using the professionalism of teachers, for which we are grateful, in adapting and developing the literacy and numeracy programmes to make them so effective right across the country. My congratulations go to the 19 schools in Barnet that have received improvement or excellence awards and to the 6,800 schools throughout the country that have also received such awards.
    Mr. John Hayes: There was a time when the Secretary of State and the Government linked such strategies to the importance of class sizes. The link was watered down in the Green Paper, which states:
    "As children get older and become more used to the disciplines of school, the size of their class or group becomes less critical".
    Leaving aside the fact that secondary school class sizes have risen and that average classes at key stage 2 have become bigger under Labour, how does the Secretary of State reconcile the fact that the number of children of nursery-school age taught in classes of more than 30 is greater under this Government than under the Conservatives? If age is so important, why are our youngest children being taught in larger classes? Is the policy simply incoherent? Have the Government failed by their own measurement? Or was the policy driven by political expediency, rather than the genuine interests of our youngest children?
    Mr. Blunkett: Class sizes and the pupil-teacher ratio have not risen in key stage 2—seven to 11-year-olds. They have improved, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We have reduced, by 450,000, the number of five to seven-year-olds who are taught in classes of more than 30. In 60 education authorities, we have pilot programmes running to reduce the size of nursery and reception classes, with the aim of providing an adult-pupil ratio of 1:15 in reception classes. We have increased nursery

    1171
    provision by 120,000 since the general election. We are the only party committed to universal nursery provision for all three and four-year-olds.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. David Taylor: What plans he has to raise standards in secondary schools. [152551]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The recent Green Paper—" Schools: Building on Success"—sets out the Government's vision for transforming secondary education. Building on our successful reforms at primary level, the programme will boost the achievements of 11 to 14-year-olds; promote diversity so that each school has its own distinct ethos; narrow the achievement gap by targeting disadvantaged areas, under-performing groups of pupils and low-performing schools; and create a system that responds effectively to the talents and aspirations of individuals.
    Mr. Taylor: Our party has historically championed inclusion and combated exclusion. Why cannot investment in diversity in secondary education take place within the comprehensive system, not alongside it? If yet more specialist schools select some pupils, will not that produce secondary moderns, not modernised secondaries? Is it still standards, not structures, that matter?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that our party has raised standards for a range of people—historically, in ending the 11-plus and rigid selection, and, more recently, in raising literacy and numeracy standards and achievement at GCSE—but if we want to continue to do so, we must modernise. There is diversity in the comprehensive system. Most specialist schools are comprehensives, and many of them serve areas of great disadvantage. They can select up to 10 per cent. of students by aptitude—only 7 per cent. of schools do so—but the crucial point is that our party has always wanted to raise standards in every school.
    All schools in my hon. Friend's constituency in Leicestershire and throughout the country will benefit from the specialist school movement, because 30 per cent. of their funds have to be used in partnership with other secondary schools and primary schools. Our vision for 2006 is not only to allow more that 40 per cent. of our secondary schools to become specialist schools, but to ensure that every secondary school in the country works in partnership with them, so that we can continue what we have done throughout our history and, more recently, in the past four years: raise standards for every child in every school, in every country, no matter what the label on the school's door says.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Is not the truth of the matter that the Government are acutely embarrassed by the Secretary of State's comments in the Green Paper, in which he says that only four out of 10 schools will be specialist? On 12 February, I said:
    "If specialist schools are good enough for four out of 10 schools, why are they not good enough for all …?"—[Official Report, 12 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 28.]
    1172
    It is worth the House hearing what the Prime Minister said in a letter, which I received today in reply to one that I sent to him. He says:
    "As you state, a large proportion of comprehensives, particularly those participating in the specialist schools programme already have strong leadership and a distinct ethos … This Government wants to see this extended to all schools, so that they may all achieve a strong reputation …"
    Does that mean that the policy of the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister is at odds with that of the Secretary of State?
    Ms Morris: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question that agrees with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he can use his time in that way, but let us put the issue in context. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, before the general election, only grant-maintained schools were allowed to apply for specialist status. Just over 100 schools were specialist schools in 1997. We have transformed the position and, through excellence in cities, we have now made sure that specialist school status, and what that means, is available to some of the schools in the most challenging areas that were deliberately excluded from the programme of the previous Government.
    The hon. Gentleman may be in the business of objecting, but we are in the business of delivering. Delivering means that we plan the expansion of our programme. In every single year since the Government came to power, we have allocated more money for specialist schools and we have changed the rules so that they have to share that money with other schools in their neighbourhood. Of course, future Labour Governments want to build on that. Our vision is to have every school that is so able to play to its own specialism within the diversity of the school system.
    We must not fall into the trap of saying that the only schools that can specialise are those that have a specialist school label. Other schools throughout the country have specialisms and they work to them. We shall carefully expand the system and make sure that we do so in the best interests of all schools.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been successful in driving up standards in schools only because we have an increasing number of the best body of teachers in the world? However, will she join me in deploring any action by teachers' unions that would damage the possibility of students receiving a decent standard of education, and will she also deplore the annual charade that teachers go through before the Easter conferences? It damages the reputation, esteem and prestige that so many of us have been trying to build up for the teaching profession.
    Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have the finest body of teachers, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that point clear at the last annual conference. All the increases in standards that politicians talk about are delivered by teachers and classroom assistants working with parents and children in the 24,000 schools throughout the country. We owe them a debt of gratitude for what they are doing for our children and the future of the nation. We all have a responsibility to shout loud and clear what a good

    1173
    profession we have and what an increasingly attractive profession it is to join. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend that teachers who do not stay in classrooms to teach children do nothing for the children, do nothing to raise standards and, indeed, send a false message of what the profession is about. I know that teachers go into teaching to teach and to support children. I have every confidence that they will continue to do so and that they will not take industrial action.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Perhaps the Liberal Democrats' spokesman should not waste the time of the House by quoting the words of the Prime Minister, bearing in mind the phrase that was made public by the former chief inspector of schools, who said that
    "there is an inverse relationship between what Tony wants and what Tony gets".
    Given that Ministers now see selection as the way to improve standards in bog-standard comprehensives, is it not time for them to accept that they should drop the Government's hostility to schools that already select and deliver high standards? Is it not time to scrap the grammar school ballot regulations, which the right hon. Lady knows have cost £300,000 of taxpayers' money, achieved nothing and left schools and parents throughout the country facing uncertainty?
    Ms Morris: There is a centralising tendency in the Conservative party. We have given the final decision on admission arrangements in selective areas to parents. The hon. Gentleman wants to take that power away from parents and put it back in the hands of central Government. We are busy getting on with raising standards in 24,000 schools. There is no more selection than there was before 1997, and our policy is to let the people, whose children's lives will most be affected by admission arrangements in selective areas, continue to make the decision. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman would deny parents the right to make that decision.
    Charlotte Atkins: Will my hon. Friend congratulate two schools in my constituency? Biddulph high recently received a truancy busting award, and Leek high used the £10,000 so generously donated by the Britannia building society to enhance computer facilities available to design and technology students, which has encouraged a range of students to stay on and to become enthusiastic about careers in both design and technology.
    Ms. Morris>: I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency, where I saw the high quality of schools and the commitment of their teachers. She highlights the commitment of individual schools to the diversity agenda and gives an excellent example of how schools can use a range of Government initiatives and sources of income to create diversity. It is especially pleasing that the children who will benefit from those initiatives are not just those who attend the schools that she named, but those who attend neighbouring schools as well. That spirit of partnership and the spreading of good practice is what our vision for the future of education is about.

    Chris Woodhead
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Mr. Chris Woodhead ceased being Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. [152552]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What categories of advice given to him by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools are confidential. [152557]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Chris Woodhead tended his resignation following the meeting of the business appointments committee on Thursday 2 November last year. We agreed that he would leave Ofsted at the end of November.
    Her Majesty's chief inspector provides me with advice on a range of matters and may publish reports that include advice that is intended to be in the public domain. In other circumstances, the chief inspector's advice normally remains confidential.
    Mr. Amess: Does the Secretary of State now accept that Mr. Woodhead's subsequent remarks cannot be dismissed as being of no consequence? Is it not the reality that the slogan "education, education, education" means more bits of paper and ill-thought-out initiatives? Is not the truth that Mr. Woodhead resigned because he could no longer inspect schools on which he believed that the Government had failed to deliver, and that the Secretary of State's epitaph will be that a generation of our children have been betrayed?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am interested in the reality of the evidence base presented by the chief inspector and his successor in subsequent annual reports. The last one, which was signed by Mr. Woodhead, said:
    "The quality of teaching has improved in all types of schools, in all subjects and in all year groups."
    I rest my case.
    Mr. Prentice: May I ask my right hon. Friend what attributes he saw in Chris Woodhead when he decided to keep the chief inspector on despite the great reservations of many people in and outside education who believed that Woodhead was like a dose of anthrax to the education profession? Given that Chris Woodhead has condemned the Government for betraying a generation of children, will my right hon. Friend concede that it was an error of judgment to keep him on?
    Mr. Blunkett: I make judgments as I find them and when they have to be made. In a signed article on 20 July 1999, when we were considering the improvements on which Chris Woodhead had worked with us, he said:
    "we now have a focus on achievement, a drive to raise standards in the basic skills, and therefore across the curriculum, that we have never had before … the only way forward is to continue"
    with those policies. I took that at face value. I was glad to work with Chris Woodhead. I wish him well and I am sorry that he has stooped to vitriol rather than sensible open debate.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: According to the latest Ofsted report, the Government's education action

    1175
    zones and fresh start scheme have failed to deliver, whereas in Guildford the use of the private sector under the Conservatives to improve a state school has been judged by Ofsted to be a resounding success. What does the Secretary of State read into the fact that Conservative policies to improve standards in our schools have done so well while his initiatives are failing so dismally?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to make a judgment on Conservative-controlled Surrey county council, which felt it necessary to bring in the technology trust from the west midlands to provide the support, guidance and back-up that the county council had failed to provide. I congratulate all those at King's Manor school and other schools throughout the country, including those in education action zones, where primary school standards have risen faster than in the rest of the country, on their tremendous achievements.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: For my part, I think that standards in schools are rising considerably, and we should reflect on that and congratulate those responsible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of concentrating on the resignation of Chris Woodhead, it would be in the interests of our schools if we concentrated on the job that the new chief inspector of schools will do? In the interim, Mike Tomlinson is already talking about Ofsted being a supportive agency for schools and working with teachers to achieve the improved standards that we all want.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree that the new chief inspector has made a flying start, and I congratulate him on that. His job will be, as Chris Woodhead's was, to adduce evidence, to reveal failure and to help us understand where best practice exists so that we can take action, in conjunction with schools and education authorities, to improve standards. That is what we have done over four years, which is why 75 per cent. of our children now leave primary school able to read and write properly and 72 per cent. are numerate. It is why GCSE and A-level results have improved and the confidence and self-esteem of teachers throughout the country are rising.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Prime Minister described the former chief inspector of schools as his sounding board on education, so when Mr. Woodhead says that the Secretary of State's idea of the purpose of schools is
    "depressing, narrow and utterly misguided",
    does the Secretary of State think that the time has come to stop betraying our children and to set schools free, recognise the importance of education for its own sake and abandon the Government's utilitarian view of education?
    Mr. Blunkett: The father of utilitarianism has his head pickled in the university of London. There are those whose heads could justifiably be pickled in the same way. I shall not rise to the bait because on 4 September last year, only six weeks before he came to see me, Chris Woodhead praised the Prime Minister in an interview in The Guardian and suggested that we had no disagreements.
    Mrs. May: The Secretary of State may not understand the true importance and purpose of education, but one
    1176
    thing he does understand is how to spin a headline. Last week, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced £1 billion of extra spending on education over the next three years; the Secretary of State welcomed that. However, a comparison of the Government's own figures for total education spending in the Red Book with the figures announced in the last spending review shows that this Budget has added not £1 billion over three years, not half of that or even a quarter of it, but only £200 million. Is that not yet another example of how the Government are all spin and no delivery? What has happened to the other £800 million—has it fallen into the black hole of the Government's education policy?
    Mr. Blunkett: My view is that education is about equipping young people for life, which means getting a job and having their own family. It is also means developing a love of learning, potential and talent. To do that, people must be able both to read and write and to draw on a body of historical knowledge; they must use creative skills to reason and be able to deploy that knowledge effectively in future.
    As for the Budget, we had that debate on Monday. The issue raised by the hon. Lady was raised then, and is as erroneous now as it was then. When £1 billion is added to a budget for a three-year period for the whole United Kingdom, there is £1 billion more to spend. As I have already allocated most of that for England—it is earmarked for spending on recruiting and retaining teachers and paying direct grant to schools across the country from April—we simply need to ask headteachers and schools whether they are receiving that money, and a great deal more than they ever got under the Conservative Government.

    Child Care (London)
    Ms Karen Buck: What measures he is taking to increase access to affordable child care in London. [152553]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The national child care strategy has created 83,000 new child care places in London in less than four years. That is more new places in London alone than the 74,000 places that the previous Government created throughout Britain in 18 years. We have also funded 31,052 new free nursery places in London. Together with the tripling of the child care budget, an extra £155 million from the new opportunities fund, £200 million for 900 neighbourhood nurseries, start-up grants for child minders, free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds, changes in child care tax credit, that means that, by 2004, we will have greatly increased access to affordable child care in London.
    Ms Buck: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in St. George's school, which, as the House will know, is the school where headmaster Philip Lawrence was tragically murdered six years ago. It has just received a clean bill of health from Ofsted, which is a tremendous credit to the acting head teacher, Lady Stubbs, all the staff, the parents, the governors and the education authority.

    1177
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled royal borough of Chelsea and Kensington recently received £1.5 million through the early years development partnership for nursery education, and the joint highest local government settlement—6.5 per cent.—in the country? Does she share my astonishment that the council is proceeding with the closure of Ladbroke nursery, which is attended by a number of my constituents' children? Does she agree that the council should review its decision and take advantage of the Government's support? That would ensure that the local authority makes provision for all the parents using the nursery who need child care in Kensington and Chelsea.
    Ms Hodge: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Marie Stubbs and her staff on the work that they have done at the school. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done on supporting the national child care strategy in her constituency?
    Plenty of new resources are available to increase the number of child care places in every area in the country. There is an especially generous settlement for Kensington and Chelsea, so there is no excuse whatsoever for closing nurseries and losing child care places. I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's comments on the council's action.
    Mr. John Bercow: The saccharine self-congratulation of the hon. Lady and her soothing bromides this morning simply will not do. Is she unaware that, according to figures published in April 2000 by her Department, the proportion of children in nursery classes with 31 to 35 pupils has risen by one fifth since the Government took office? Is she aware that, under her watch, more than 1,500 pre-school playgroups have closed? If she is not aware of those things, will she become aware—and, furthermore, abandon the forced cattle-truck mentality that has besmirched the Government's performance, and create a level playing field with genuine competition and free choice for parents?
    Ms Hodge: I am delighted to have the opportunity to engage with the hon. Gentleman. I know that those in the Press Gallery find it difficult to accept some of the words that we use, and I do not want to say "mendacious toe-rag", so I shall use the term "economical with the truth". We replaced the unhealthy competition that led to a decrease in the number of places available in playgroups with a planned partnership between all sectors to increase the number of places in every part of the country.
    As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, following declines in the number of places available in playgroups over time, we have finally turned the corner. This year there are almost 6,000 more places. Across the country, we have created new places for more than 500,000 children, and we are in line to create free nursery education places for all three and four-year-olds in class sizes of one to 15.

    Raising Standards
    Valerie Davey: How he plans that the creative partnerships initiative and the pupil learning credits will raise educational standards. [152554]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The £35 million that we announced for pupil learning credits and the £40 million announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for creative partnerships will raise standards by offering pupils innovative and creative opportunities to learn. Children and teachers in my hon. Friend's constituency will get the chance to work directly with artists, cultural organisations and the creative industries. That will pay dividends in raised self-esteem and improved attendance, and will encourage a lifelong commitment to learning.
    Valerie Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the two Departments on those imaginative programmes. There is good practice on which to build in Bristol. Multi-A, an arts charity based in my constituency with business backing, already enables more than 3,000 youngsters every week to have tuition and to visit live performances of the arts. Today, 400 youngsters, having had ballet workshops from the English National Ballet, will see "Giselle" at the Bristol Hippodrome. Given all that, does my hon. Friend recognise the description of schools as
    "depressing, narrow and utterly misguided",
    in the words of the former chief inspector?
    Jacqui Smith: When I visit schools I recognise that, as the former chief inspector said in his last report, teaching is improving. That means that children not only have access to the basic skills that are crucial, but are becoming well rounded and creative children. I congratulate Multi-A and other such organisations on the very good work that they are already doing. We want to build on that with creative partnerships and pupil learning credits, which will also support sporting and other activities.
    As a mother, I want my children to learn a musical instrument, to go to the theatre, to surf the net for fun and learning, to play football, to read "Harry Potter" and other books at home for pleasure. I expect that many hon. Members with children feel the same; but the difference between Labour Members and the Tories is that we think that if it is good for our children, it is good for all children, and we will invest in it, whereas the Tories would cut it.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Do Ministers accept that, to raise education standards, it is no good the Government having a continuing alphabet soup of initiatives, tsars, taskforces and websites? The only way to raise standards is to have more good teachers. The Government have a serious problem with the recruitment and retention of teachers. Some 10,000 teacher training places have gone unfilled during the Government's lifetime, and teachers in Oxfordshire are leaving the profession because they are simply not paid enough. When will the Government grasp the nettle and pay teachers more so that we can have more teachers, better recruitment and better retention?
    Jacqui Smith: That sounds like a pre-emptive strike to cut the money for creative partnerships and pupil learning credits—if we were unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Government. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need good teachers. There are almost 7,000 more teachers in schools in England; if we had followed Conservative spending plans, there would be 10,000 fewer. The increase in the number of teachers

    1179
    is an important sign of the Government's commitment to teaching. That commitment is reflected in the increasing number of those training to teach, the above-inflation pay rise that we have given teachers, and the threshold payments that grant experienced teachers a significant pay rise. There is also good news about the increase in applications for teacher training.
    Conservative Members should join Ministers in praising and supporting teachers, and in encouraging more people to enter the profession. They should stop talking it down.

    Skills Base
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What further measures the Government propose to increase the United Kingdom's skills base. [152556]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): As part of our strategy for achieving a high skills and a high value-added economy, we have established the national skills taskforce, put in place measures to address basic skills needs—they are set out in the document that was published on 1 March—and created the Learning and Skills Council, which will be on stream from 1 April. We are also establishing new technology institutes and centres of vocational excellence throughout the country.
    Mr. Mackinlay: The Secretary of State can stick his chest out about yesterday's news of the lowest unemployment for 25 years. However, does he appreciate that new problems arise, such as a skills shortage at a time when we are achieving almost full employment? In my constituency, there are many semi-skilled, unskilled and de-skilled people. Statistics show that only 22 per cent. have access to the internet, whereas the figure is approximately 86 per cent. for the professional classes.
    What measures will the Government take to ensure that the people I represent, and my right hon. Friend's constituents, are enabled, emancipated and given access to the internet, in the interests of the United Kingdom economy and so that they can fulfil their moral right to develop their skills and personalities, and enjoy new technologies as others in the United Kingdom do? That's socialism!
    Mr. Blunkett: I am in favour of all that. I was pleased that my hon. Friend's constituency received funding for two new learning centres and that I was able to launch the online programme a week ago. It provides for the development of more than 2,000 learning centres throughout the country, linked to the learning grid and our programme of investment, which was reinforced yesterday in our Green Paper. The programme is directed at those with skills needs and those who face the greatest hardship and difficulty. By doing that, we can ensure that we have an inclusive society, in which people have good quality, lasting jobs and are able to take advantage of the strength of the economy, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has ensured.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that we will not increase the skills base by putting pupils on buses that drive past excellent schools that they are not allowed to attend? Ribblesdale high
    1180
    school in Clitheroe has technology status and many computers. It is an excellent school, and the head has done tremendous work in turning it round. Youngsters have to drive past it to attend other schools simply because the local education authority has failed to meet the demands of local youngsters to go to it. Will the Secretary of State encourage the LEA to take more account of house building in Ribble Valley and thus ensure that people can attend some of our excellent local schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: The question appears to be: do we agree that, whenever possible, children should be able to attend their local school, free from restrictions that prevent that and force them to pass schools that others attend? I agree. It is a pity that Conservative party policies, especially those on selection, would preclude that.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are further to increase the United Kingdom's skills base, every child must leave school having realised their full potential? Will he assure the House that under-achievement, right back to primary school, and the individual needs of children will be identified early, and that that support will continue post-primary school until children leave the school system?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do agree with that. I am glad to get back to the subject of skills, because I realised that the previous question was not related to the one on the Order Paper. I am happy to confirm that carrying the basic skills literacy and numeracy programmes through primary to secondary education, engaging young people aged between 14 and 19, and developing classroom and work-based high quality vocational routes are all crucial. Developing the modern advanced apprenticeship schemes and vocational GCSEs and A-levels will contribute to achieving that.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement this morning of the largest single overseas offshore contract, involving 750 jobs in my constituency, is a major boost for the north-east and a fulfilment of the Government's pledge to spread prosperity throughout the regions? Does he also accept that the biggest problem faced by the hard core long-term unemployed in places such as Hartlepool is a persistent lack of skills and a low level of employability, and that we need in constituencies such as mine targeted intervention by the Government and agencies, so that that gap can be remedied and people who want to work can fill the job vacancies that have been generated in the economy?
    Mr. Blunkett: Like my right hon. Friend, I greatly welcome the investment and creation of jobs in his area. I congratulate him on his excellent efforts in ensuring that. At the risk of incurring the most venomous writing of Matthew Parris, I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that his area was a pathfinder in developing the new deal programmes for specific skills training. Indeed, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I announced an extension of action teams for jobs to link people who are in danger of losing their jobs to the skills that enable them to take the new jobs announced today.

    Comprehensive Schools
    Sir David Madel: How many comprehensive schools have been closed since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [152558]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Up to the end of 2000, a total of 143 comprehensive schools had closed since May 1997. That figure includes schools that have closed owing to the amalgamation or merger of two or more schools, and schools in local education authorities that have moved from a three-tier to a two-tier education system.
    Sir David Madel: The right hon. Lady is aware that, following the closure of the upper school in Houghton Regis, Northfields upper school, in Dunstable, faces additional challenges. She is also aware of the changing nature of employment in my constituency, where there have been heavy job losses in the motor and allied industries. Will she do all she can to grant Northfields school technology status, the better to prepare its young people for the new, high-skilled jobs that are so essential to the south Bedfordshire area?
    Ms Morris: Indeed I am aware of Northfields school—thanks to the hon. Gentleman's efforts, it is one of the schools emblazoned on my memory. I fully recognise that he has campaigned long and hard for it to be granted specialist status. I can say no more than that I know that it has submitted a bid—I think for the third time—which will be evaluated against a set of criteria. We shall just have to wait and see. However, it is acknowledged that if schools are really to serve their children, they need to reflect on the changing demands of a changing local economy. I am delighted that he has a school in his constituency that accepts that responsibility and is gearing up to meet it. I very much hope that, if not this term, then at some time in future, Northfields school will achieve specialist status. I, like the hon. Gentleman, realise that that will further help it to deliver quality education for his constituents.

    Nursery Places
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What assessment he has made of the take-up rate of nursery places in the last year. [152560]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Since 1997, we have created 120,000 free early education places for three and four-year-olds. We will announce figures for 2000–01 shortly. All four-year-olds and half of all three-year-olds are now entitled to free part-time early education places. In the same period, 298,000 new child care places for 546,000 more children have also been created.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased at the increase in the number of nursery and pre-school places, and I compliment the Government on it. Will she consider a specific and rather unusual problem? Some primary schools have developed nursery classes, but because of the perversity of the charging system, independent, voluntary and local authority day nurseries
    1182
    often lose children, and as a result some of them have tragically had to close. I am sure that she would agree that at the same time as the Government are trying to develop more pre-school and nursery places, which we all welcome, it is sad that some of the independent and voluntary nurseries are having to close. Will she examine the charging system that they have to impose, especially for parents who are out of work or just about to start work and cannot afford the fees, which leads to a loss of necessary and important nursery places?
    Ms Hodge: The whole thrust of our policy on expanding early years education and child care is to develop integrated places, bringing together early years education and child care to best meet the needs of children and of the modern family. I hope that the nurseries in my hon. Friend's constituency will take advantage of the substantial new resources that are available to create integrated places, which could be in nursery schools or in nurseries in the private and voluntary sectors. Following the Chancellor's announcement on the increases in child care tax credit, places, especially in areas such as inner London, are now affordable to low-income families.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that although there has been an increase in nursery places attached to schools, the number of pre-school playgroups has fallen during the Government's time in office? There has also been a dramatic diminution in the number of registered child minders. Does she realise that the Government are doing further harm by their surreptitious announcement last week of a new stealth tax on small primary schools? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) introduced the citizens charter and the charter mark, small schools could apply for the latter free. The Government are now preventing small schools from applying by imposing a stealth tax charge of £600 to be considered for a charter mark. Many schools in my constituency with successful nursery classes have succeeded in winning charter marks, but now they will not even be allowed to apply. Is not that yet another scandal and another example of the Government betraying small schools?
    Ms Hodge: It is sad that Conservative Members never quite get their facts right. The additional costs will be met by the Department, so there will be no additional costs to schools. I shall repeat what I said earlier about places in playgroups. There has been a steady decline in pre-school places, which started under the previous Government because of their divisive nursery voucher scheme. We have replaced that with planned partnerships, and this year for the first time the number of places available in pre-schools has increased by 5,900. We are aware of the decline in places with child minders, which is why we have introduced start-up grants to assist child minders. That is already having an effect, and we are confident that there will be 145,000 new child minder places by 2004.

    New Deal
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If he will estimate the number of (a) lone parents, (b) young people and (c) long-term unemployed young people who have entered the work force under the new deal. [152562]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The latest figures, to the end of December 2000, show that 81,311 lone parents and at least 274,230 young people aged 18 to 24 have found work through the new deal. In addition, 62,570 long-term unemployed people aged over 25, and 20,385 people in the new deal 50-plus have found jobs through the new deal.
    The combined effect of the strong, stable economy, the new deal and the efforts of hundreds of thousands of unemployed people enabled us to announce yesterday that we have reached a milestone. For the first time in 25 years, claimant unemployment has fallen below 1 million.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister remember meeting unemployed people a decade ago, during the recession, who despaired of ever again getting a job? Hundreds of people in my constituency have benefited from the new deal, and tell me that it has transformed their lives. Does my hon. Friend share my deep regret that the policy that has brought about that great prosperity for people is under threat from the Conservative party?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government offer the prospect of a better, strengthened new deal that gives opportunity for long-term unemployed people. The Opposition offer no deal.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the coming week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Second Reading of Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Common European Security and Defence policy.
TUESDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Churchwardens Measure.
WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH—Opposition day [7th Allotted Day]. Until about 10 o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Government's Conduct of Foreign Policy" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 22 MARCH-The House will be asked to consider a motion arising from the Second Report from the Procedure Committee: "Election of a Speaker".
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 23 MARCH-Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 26 MARCH—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Second Reading of Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March there will be a debate relating to the support scheme for olive oil in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March there will be a debate relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment in European Standing Committee C. [Relevant documents:
Wednesday 28 March 2001:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 9431/00; Support scheme for olive oil. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxvii (1999–2000).]
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10802/00; Waste electrical and electronic equipment. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports HC 28-i (2000–01) and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000).
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for those announcements. We very much welcome the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement to the House following business questions. Events in the foot and mouth outbreak move
1186
fast, so may I urge the right hon. Lady to impress on Ministers at MAFF that it would be extremely helpful to hon. Members of all parties if Ministers were able to come to the House with announcements as frequently as possible? The questions and concerns of hon. Members change every day, so I hope that the right hon. Lady will ask her colleague to ensure that Ministers are more available to the House.
In the coming week, is an announcement—or even a debate—planned retarding the Government's proposed cross-party Committee to consider the proceedings of the upper House? The House will be aware that the other place dealt with the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill this week. The Government made an extraordinary proposal: they tabled a procedure motion in the other place to allow only amendments approved by the Government to be debated. That is as great a concern to hon. Members in this Chamber as it is to my noble Friends. Given the precedent that the Government have set, will the right hon. Lady consider sharing with the House what their intentions are for proceedings in another place?
Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Government intend in the coming week's business to allow time for a debate on remaining order No. 50 on the Order Paper, with which she will be familiar? It has been tabled in her name and concerns the reprimand to the Westminster Four. Conservative Members would certainly welcome the opportunity to debate the order—[HON. MEMBERS: "At length."] I agree with my hon. Friends. Extraordinarily, we had anticipated that the debate would take place on Monday because of what was seen to be almost a business announcement by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on Report on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. He informed my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe):
"I look forward to seeing her on Monday evening, although, unfortunately, she cannot speak then. I gather that, when it comes to debating her position the Opposition Chief Whip will speak for her."—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1086.]
That was quite an accurate statement, but, again, it was surprising that that was said by a Home Office Minister when the Leader of the House has not confirmed that that debate will take place on Monday.
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can confirm that the Government intend to provide time, certainly within the next week or two weeks, for the House to debate the conduct of the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). It is an astonishing situation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has stated clearly that only half the complaints that were put before her in respect of the hon. Gentleman were dealt with because he has failed or has refused to answer any further questions that the commissioner has put to him. Clearly, the House cannot condone such conduct. I hope that the right hon. Lady will ensure that we get a chance to debate that matter.
We would also like to debate the conduct of the Foreign Secretary and the relationship between him and the media during the period that he had possession of a leaked Select Committee report: he had possession of it before it was made officially available. The subject of that report was Sierra Leone, which is an important matter to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that, in the spirit of the reprimand that the right hon. Lady has tabled

1187
in respect of my right hon. and hon. Friends, she will feel that matters appertaining to the Foreign Secretary and to the Minister for Europe are as, if not even more, important in terms of censure.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the statement that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She is right to say that it is important for Ministers to come to the House to keep it informed. I recognise fully that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the situation and about how it changes day to day. I know that she acknowledges that Ministers are doing everything that they can to spread information and to keep hon. Members up to date with the changing situation by placing updated information continually on the Department's website and by placing in the Library the daily briefings that they are giving.
Formal reports to the House, which allow for questions from hon. Members, are part of that process, but I know that the hon. Lady recognises the importance of Ministers balancing their duties to help to tackle the outbreak with their duties to keep the House informed.
The hon. Lady asked about the handling of debates in the upper House. I have not followed the detail of what has been happening in the upper House. My understanding, however, is that the procedures that were adopted for the Hunting Bill were welcomed and supported by representatives of every part of the upper House—those on the Bishops Bench the Cross Benches and others—with the sad exception of those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Mr. John Bercow: That's all right, then.
Mrs. Beckett: I thought that majorities ruled, even in the upper House. That probably suggests that it was all right, but I emphasise that it is not a matter for me and that the Government are not making proposals for the procedures of another place, which are a matter for that House. That House took the decision, not us. The hon. Lady will also know that the Government do not have a majority in the upper House; indeed, the Government have only one third of the Members of the upper House. Noble Lords took their decision; that is a matter for them.
The hon. Lady asked me about the issue of the conduct of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—rather unwisely, I should have thought, but that is a matter for her. She also asked me about the issues that have been raised in relation to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. She has raised issues that are highlighted in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. What she does not recognise, and what the House must at all times take into account, is that the reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee are unanimous and have always been unanimous, although there have been some—not least in the news media, but, occasionally, also on the Opposition Benches—who try to give a different impression.
The House charges that Committee with a heavy and very difficult responsibility, which is to weigh the evidence that is put before it and to come to its views. As I had no part in deciding the framework within which
1188
the Committee works, or any part whatsoever in the appointment of members to that Committee, I feel perfectly free to say that I think that it is both dangerous and unwise for hon. Members on either side of the House to pass judgment and to try to second-guess the members whom we ourselves have appointed to that Committee—for all of whom I have great respect, although I do not always agree with them. The hon. Lady and others should take that into account.
The hon. Lady asked also about a debate on the conduct of the Foreign Secretary. I read four or five times—because I thought that I must be missing something—the stories that appeared over the weekend about his conduct, and what he said and what he answered to the House, without being able to discover within them any contradiction with what actually happened. Of course it is open to hon. Members to seek to pursue opportunities to discuss his conduct, but I suspect that the content of any such debate would be extremely short and that most normal members of the public would find the matter extremely boring.
I should like to say one other thing to the hon. Lady about her suggestion—I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for this lengthy reply but I think that it is such an important issue for the entire House—that we should have a debate on such matters. Two things, I think, are of great importance to all hon. Members. The first and by every standard the most important is that there should not be corruption in our public life, and that if there is corruption it should be stamped out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That has to be—[Interruption.] I am glad to know that Opposition Members support that contention, and I say to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that he should be more cautious in what he says.
Secondly, however, while it has to be the prime role of this House to ensure that corruption is identified and removed if it exists, every single hon. Member has an interest in ensuring that frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations are not made or encouraged. I say—I have said it to hon. Friends and I say it publicly as I would say it privately to Opposition Members—that allegations should be neither made nor pursued for what is thought to be either personal or party advantage or vendetta. I think that that is damaging to the House and damaging to hon. Members, and it is something that all hon. Members should bear in mind.
The final issue that the hon. Lady raised was whether we should debate the behaviour of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I recognise that this is not a Question Time for the hon. Lady, but there is a question for her to consider in her role as shadow Leader of the House. It is the question that I put to her the other evening about whether Conservative Members uphold the authority of the Chair. I remind her and other Opposition Members of the words of Mr. Speaker a few days ago—which were that the right hon. Lady had no business to be in that Committee, and that he disapproved strongly of her being there. That has always been the rule of this House, and it is a rule that all hon. Members would be well advised to bear in mind.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Will the remaining stages of the Bill on the abolition of hunting with hounds will come back to this House before or after 3 May? Is she aware that yesterday the Duke of Devonshire and the

1189
Countryside Alliance were clamouring for a postponement of any election until well after 3 May? Can she tell them when the foxhunting Bill might go through its remaining stages so that they can make their mind up about which date they would like the election to be held?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the specific individuals who were calling for the postponement of an election, which, as far as I am aware, has not been called. I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is clear from the way in which the House voted that a majority of Members take the view that a hunting Bill should reach the statute book, and the House has given its verdict on the form that that legislation should take. It is a matter for Members of the other place how and when they take their decisions, but I am sure that they will be mindful of the views of the elected House.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Prime Minister yesterday announced the appointment of a Minister for veterans affairs, which I am sure is widely welcomed on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House assure us that information will be made available to all Members on the Minister's role and remit, and, in particular, what additional budget will be made available to him? Will the right hon. Lady also assure us that his attention will be drawn immediately to early-day motion 226 on Gulf veterans:
[That this House notes that, 10 years after the Gulf War, veterans and their families are still awaiting the outcome of research; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to disclose what further consideration they are giving to the needs of those Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and of the dependants of those who have died.]
The Leader of the House will recall that I have asked her on two successive occasions at business questions about contingency plans for the census and the county council elections on 3 May. I am very grateful to her for the reply that I received just as I came into the Chamber, which answers some of the questions that arise. However, since I asked those questions, the Tory tabloids have started a clamour to postpone the elections on 3 May.
Hon. Members: Name them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not shout at the hon. Gentleman. He is entitled to say his piece.
Mr. Tyler: We all know that the situation is extremely serious in many parts of the country as a result of foot and mouth disease. Does the right hon. Lady support the view expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that the countryside of Britain is not closed? Does she agree that if we suggested that all business in this country, including an election, had to be postponed because of the severity of the situation it would be the worst possible signal to give, particularly to foreign visitors?
Will returning officers be encouraged to issue a postal vote application form with polling cards to all those who may otherwise not be aware of the new facilities, together with an explanation that the means for postal voting are
1190
now much more widely available than they were previously? Will she also give an undertaking that the Home Office will reconsider election expenses, which in rural areas such as Cornwall will be much higher if we have to operate at a distance and cannot use volunteers on foot?
Finally, what legislation may be necessary to make any changes to the census date or polling day for any election, be it the county elections or the general election? What is the last available date by which that legislation must be brought before the House?
Mrs. Beckett: On the role of my colleague who has been appointed Minister for veterans affairs, the Ministry of Defence will issue a statement about his role and remit. As for whether that post will have a separate budget, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already taken steps to deal with the issues of greatest concern that were constantly raised with our predecessors—the treatment of war widows and compensation for former Japanese prisoners of war. Resolution of those issues has been urged on Governments for very many years and it has fallen to this Government to take action, which the previous Government refused to do.
The hon. Gentleman in also referred to Gulf war veterans. The Government's view is that the key components of the issue are dialogue, the provision of medical assistance as required, the pursuit of the right research and its publication.
The hon. Gentleman asked about contingency plans, with regard to the election, and I am grateful to him for his thanks for the information that I have given to him. He raised an important point when he referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but it is my understanding that a range of organisations concerned with the tourist industry in particular has begun to express serious alarm at any suggestion that the local elections might be postponed because of the signal that that would send. Along with the concerns of those who, for perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons, argue that the local elections should be postponed, is the different and equally worthy point of view that that would be the wrong signal to give. The Government are taking all those issues into account.
The hon. Gentleman suggested what should be the action of returning officers, and I shall draw his suggestion to the attention of the relevant authorities. It is possible that the money involved would come from local authorities' budgets, so it may be a matter for them; but returning officers must always encourage people to be aware of how they can exercise their votes, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is interesting. I shall also pass on his comments about the impact on election expenses, although I offer him no great prospect of change.
As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, primary legislation would be required were we to seek to change the date of the local elections. I understand that we would also be required to name a new date: many of those who suggest a postponement do not seem to have taken that into account.
According to my recollection, the date of the census was set by order, so the position may be simpler. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the answer

1191
I have given him in writing that those who conduct the census are considering the timing of information and how it is collected, to establish whether there are changes they could helpfully make that would mean things could proceed with the same effectiveness, if not in precisely the same way.
Dr. David Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a broad smile on the face of Tyneside this morning, following the excellent news that AMEC and Shell have clinched the largest-ever overseas offshore contract? It will bring 4,000 jobs to the country—1,000 on Tyneside, 1,000 in the rest of the north-east, and 2,000 throughout the remainder of the country.
May we congratulate the workers and management of those companies, and—given that the news comes on the back of major investment announcements by Nissan, Toyota, Rolls-Royce, Volkswagen, Jaguar and Ford—may we have a debate on why Britain is a good country in which to do business?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's wish for such a debate. It is clear from the decisions and, indeed, the comments of these many internationally mobile inward investors that they share the view expressed by organisations as disparate as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that, under this Government, Britain is a very good place in which to do business. I also understand my right hon. Friend's welcome for the extra employment—on behalf of his constituents and others—which I am sure is shared by Members throughout the House, and echo his congratulations to management and work force.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend might consider Westminster Hall.
Mr. Stephen Day: Would the Leader of the House be kind enough to tell us when we can expect a statement from her about future sittings? She will know that, under a completely new and revolutionary procedure, the Committee considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill was deemed to have finished its work when it manifestly had not. Can we expect the right hon. Lady to announce at next week's business questions that we are to debate a motion stating that Parliament is deemed to have completed all outstanding business, and is therefore to be dissolved?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can expect that, although it is a tempting thought sometimes.
On occasion, there is some inaccuracy in Opposition Members' description of these events. The House decided merely to deem that the Bill had been reported. It would have been a case of the Committee's considering a single issue—a single motion that it would certainly have considered, and presumably passed had there been an opportunity to put the question.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). When a Back Bencher used such tactics on a previous occasion, he said that if tactics are used artificially to disrupt the
1192
proceedings of a Committee, the Government and the House must find a remedy for it. It is not to be tolerated that such a procedure should be used without remedy.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am not used to receiving unqualified support from Prime Ministers, especially Conservative ex-Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend may have noticed that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has signed my early-day motion 257
[That this House warmly supports the proposal put forward by Rita Restorick, and others such as the Royal British Legion, the Gulf Veterans, the Falklands Families and the South Atlantic Medal Association, that a posthumous medal, similar to the US Purple Heart, be presented to the next of kin of troops killed in action so that it can be worn with pride on Remembrance Day; accepts that suitable criteria for such a medal need he carefully defined and that this is best done by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the Royal British Legion and forces' associations; but believes that servicemen and women who are killed in the line of duty have made the supreme sacrifice and deserve recognition for this in the form of a medal, as well as the Government's proposed memorial in central London.]
It calls for posthumous medals to be issued to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice as troops in the forces for Britain. The campaign is run by Rita Restorick, whose son was the last person to be murdered on duty by the IRA in south Armagh. As it now has such prestigious support, may we have a debate about it on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. He knows that the House has the greatest respect for Rita Restorick. We sympathise with her loss, admire her courage and recognise the concerns of the wider community with which she bore that loss. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the granting of medals can be contentious. There is not a tradition of awarding a medal because an individual has died, however tragic the circumstances of that death. The Government keep these issues under review. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is so grateful to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I am sure that such support lends lustre to his early-day motion. Although I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I fear that that support may not be the clinching factor that swings the decision one way or the other.
Mr. Richard Page: Has the Leader of the House seen the draft statutory instrument, Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order 2001? Is she aware that this Bill—Freudian slip—or rather, statutory instrument appeared yesterday and is down to be debated at 4.30 pm on Monday? Is she aware that it is 144 articles long and longer than the original Postal Services Act 2000 that appeared on 27 January 2000? Is she aware that the other place was due to consider it with six other statutory instruments tomorrow but, following representations, it has been withdrawn? This is either carelessness or an abuse of power. Will the Leader of the House ensure that

1193
its consideration is postponed and that either it is split into six or seven manageable statutory instruments or we have a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: As the House will recognise, if we were always to judge the time we spend on a matter by its length, it would not be wise. I was not aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman identified. I cannot undertake to make changes on the hoof, so to speak. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibility for this matter. No doubt they will take heed of his remarks.
Mr. Syd Rapson: May I first thank my right hon. Friend for her welcome visit to King Richard school in my constituency to underline its anti-drug culture?
May we have time for a debate on fairness at work? I ask because of revelations in a newspaper on Sunday that the Leader of the Opposition has sent a threatening letter to Sir Ken Jackson, the leader of my union, promising that if the Opposition came to power they would revoke all legislation on recognition for trade unions. Does not that underline the Opposition's wish to exploit people, whereas the Labour Government are protecting them all the time?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy; I very much enjoyed my visit to an excellent school in his constituency, which is doing a tremendous job. I was much impressed by the talent of the young people taking part in the anti-drugs campaign—as any Member of the House would have been.
My hon. Friend asks for a debate on fairness at work, and raises the correspondence between Sir Ken Jackson and the Leader of the Opposition. I have, of course, taken on board the policy observations that were made. I understand my hon. Friend's concern; as he recognises, the Labour Government have long taken the view that it is a gross economic error to try to compete in today's economies on the basis of sweatshop conditions or of aiming for ever-lower pay and costs. Investment in quality and value must be the only sound long-term basis for the United Kingdom. It is clear that that view is shared across the economy—not least by the great bulk of private sector employers. Many people will share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor for a debate on the matter, but I am sure that he will find other opportunities to raise it.
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the latest report of the Select Committee on Liaison, "Shifting the Balance: Unfinished Business"? Does she recall that the previous occasion on which the House debated such matters was due to the generosity of the Opposition, who found time for the debate? It is up to the Government to find time for such important issues.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Committee concludes unanimously:
"It is clear that the system for nominating members of select committees must be changed."?
1194
If that change is to be implemented in time for the new Parliament, the Government will have to activate the machinery quite soon. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate and the necessary votes?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the latest report from the Liaison Committee, which was, I understand, published at one minute past midnight today, when I had other concerns. Of course, I shall study the report with great interest. On two previous occasions, we have debated and discussed the recommendations of the Committee; I shall read the report's recommendations with great care and attention.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House recognise the misgivings in many parts of the House about the report published on the Minister for Europe? Although my right hon. Friend is right to reject the exaggerated claims made for party political reasons by the Opposition, the report gives evidence of inadequacies in our procedures and of the need for a debate on future reforms.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that the Standards and Privileges Committee published a report some little time ago, stating that we should look again at our procedures. The Committee is now taking evidence—several hon. Members have given written or oral evidence—and I have little doubt that a time will come when the House will look again at the framework within which we make judgments on those matters. However, I doubt that it is likely to be in the near future. When and if we discuss those issues, I hope that the House will look more widely at the framework—the structure—for how we make such judgments, rather than relying on individual reports, because there are different views and concerns throughout the House.
Mr. David Chidgey: In my constituency, dozens of four-year-old children face the prospect of being bussed five miles or more to their first school in September. That is due to the abject failure of the Conservative-controlled local education authority to provide sufficient school places for those children in their catchment area. Will the Leader of the House ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement to the House, setting out the duty of local education authorities to provide school places for local children, and to tell the House what measures he can take to ensure that education authorities subscribe to their duties?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the position described by the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly sorry to learn of another example of lack of investment resulting in inadequate opportunities—especially for young people. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue, but I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is a debate on the reform of the Register of Members' Interests, full account should be taken of the fact that since it was set up in the mid-1970s it has never had the full authority of all Members of

1195
the House? At the beginning, at least two Members would not comply with it at all. Latterly, we made a suggestion, which we thought would apply, that every Member with outside interests—the moonlighters, many of them on the Tory Benches—would have to put down all their outside earnings within specific brackets. Some of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench—the Tory shadow Ministers—refused to put down their earnings, so the whole purpose of the register has been violated for several years. We should have full authority to reform the register, and when we have that debate, let us make sure that all those Tory MPs, the moonlighters, who refuse to put down their earnings have to declare them before they are allowed to speak.
Mrs. Beckett: I recall the very early days of the register and those Members who, as my hon. Friend rightly said, refused to comply with it. If I remember correctly, there was one on either side of the House. Of course I understand the point that he makes. There will come a time when the House will have to take a fresh look at how we handle those issues and what is the right framework in which to ensure that the information that should be known is on the record. We have to decide whether Members should declare what is relevant to their performance as Members, or whether everything with regard to Members' financial affairs should be fully disclosed. My hon. Friend will know that some of my hon. Friends and I have different views on that matter, and there are different views about it on either side of the House.
Sir Peter Emery: Will right hon. Lady agree to have words with the Prime Minister before next Wednesday's business, to point out the massive concern in the west country, especially in Devon, about the affect of the foot and mouth epidemic and the feeling that it would be quite impossible to run a proper general election during this period? [Interruption.] It may be funny to some hon. Members, but in my constituency and throughout the west country, it is a very serious matter indeed. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would point out to her colleague, the Prime Minister, that, although he is making great play of the fact that there is a great deal that the Labour party yet has to accomplish, he still has 20 per cent. of this Parliament in which to do so, if he would get on with it. That would be much more satisfactory to my constituents, and perhaps even to me, but we shall leave that out.
Mrs. Beckett: We are scheduled to hold local elections on 3 May, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. Of course I understand and sympathise, as does the House, with his constituents' concerns, not least because they live in perhaps the second most severely affected part of the United Kingdom until now. Obviously, although the media have been talking about a general election on 3 May for more than a year, no general election has been called. However, the Government keep the position under review. At present, we are primarily concerned with handling the foot and mouth outbreak, which is obviously at the top of everyone's agenda.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Pursuant to the questions asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for
1196
North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), may I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that the last dedicated, full day's debate on veterans' affairs was held on the anniversary of the battle of the Somme—1 July 1994—when I was fortunate enough to table a Back-Bench motion. Unfortunately, such motions have disappeared under the Jopling changes. On that occasion, the House unanimously passed a resolution that there should be a dedicated veterans Minister. My right hon. Friend will understand my joy—and, more importantly, that of the 1.75 million members of the Royal British Legion—that, yesterday, the Prime Minister fulfilled the resolution that was passed in the previous Parliament.
Logically, if we have a veterans Minister, we also need an annual, full-day debate along the lines of the debate on the Metropolitan police that takes place every October. Will she build such a debate into the parliamentary timetable after the next general election?
Finally—[Interruption.] The House might not like it, but the issue is important. In the debate in 1994, the then Conservative Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Jonathan Aitken, said:
"My answer to the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Thurrock is that, at first glance, it sounds attractive and interesting, but the attraction of establishing a single focal point with responsibility for all the needs of ex-service personnel is superficial."—[Official Report, 1 July 1994; Vol. 245, c. 1104.]
They denied it; we have delivered it.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has long been a very vigorous campaigner on this issue.
Mr. Skinner: I think that he should get the job.
Mrs. Beckett: Without any personal interest in the outcome, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has long been a vigorous campaigner for such a post to be created. He deserves the congratulations of both sides of the House on the fact that the campaign has been successful. As he rightly said, it has long been a campaign of the Royal British Legion, and I know that it will welcome the creation of the post.
As my hon. Friend knows, any Leader of the House receives many—they are almost all extremely worthwhile—requests on a whole range of issues for a commitment to a day's debate on the Floor of the House. I therefore cannot give him such a commitment, but I shall certainly bear his observations in mind.
Mr. John Hayes: The Leader of the House will know that I have previously called for a debate in the Chamber on early-years education. Such a debate might focus on the fact the pre-schools and playgroups have closed at a rate of knots under this Government or on the fact that the number of children educated in nursery classes with more than 30 children is greater than it was under the previous Conservative Government. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about this matter, and he told me that he was in liaison with the Leader of the House. What are the results of those discussions? May we have a debate in the Chamber about how the Government are failing our youngest children?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises an entirely reasonable and legitimate concern, but I rather suspect

1197
that the chief reason why pre-school groups and playgroups are finding it difficult to continue to make headway is that the Government have made available opportunities for universal nursery education on a scale that has never been seen before. Therefore, the outcome is a consequence of success rather than of failure.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has repeatedly stressed how much he values that range of provision. The Government have done a great deal to try to work with, support and assist such voluntary groups, and we shall continue to do so. My right hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future.
Mr. Andrew Miller: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and ask for an early debate on the suggested postponement of the local elections due to be held on 3 May? My right hon. Friend will have heard that The Wall Street Journal has the mistaken view that Britain is under quarantine, and that causes great concern in Chester, which is important to my constituency. I heard today on Radio 5 Live that the deputy leader of Cumbria county council, which covers a rural area, has expressed her concern about such comments. It would cause immense damage to tourism if a similar message were to go out from this House. We must have an early debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He will know that the taskforce that was set up this week is trying to clarify the position in rural areas. It is clear that many people who were thinking of taking a holiday break in parts of the country that might be unaffected thought that they might be helping the general position of the agriculture industry by changing their minds and cancelling their arrangements. That is obviously causing great concern to the tourist industry.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the fact that we must make it plain that Britain is not in a state of quarantine. Firm action is being taken and it is incumbent on us all to try to identify what can safely be done and what should be avoided so that we ensure that we do not do anything that would add to the spread of the disease. I understand his concerns. He will know that we have made regular statements to the House and will continue to do so, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate soon.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here to make a statement and answer questions on foot and mouth, but I want to raise a related matter that concerns the Leader of the House. What mechanisms are in place for Members of Parliament to bring foot and mouth problems to the Minister's attention? The right hon. Lady will be aware that I mentioned this in a point of order on Monday, in which I explained that there is no dedicated officer in the Ministry with whom we can raise our concerns. When I rang the Minister's private office on
1198
Monday, one of his officials told me that I should call a local animal health office. I said, "Come on. I am a Member of Parliament. I want a dedicated officer." He promised to get back to me, but still no one has contacted me. I rang the foot and mouth helpline, which said that it could not help because the information was three days out of date. That is not good enough.
Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate whether we can have a dedicated officer to whom we can rapidly bring problems? It was suggested that the hon. Member for Bolton. West (Ms Kelly), the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, would be that contact. I handed to her last Thursday an urgent constituency case, but I have heard nothing from either the Minister or anyone in his office. I do not know what has happened to that case—perhaps it has been lost. Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate the problem and see what can be done?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend is here and will, no doubt, take heed of what he says. I have pages of listed contacts that different hon. Members have rightly and legitimately made with the Ministry to pass on information and concerns, which may be of help to it. My right hon. Friend is doing everything he can in difficult circumstances to keep the House informed, which I am sure he will continue to do. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wish to have a dedicated officer. Although the Government take fully into account the concerns of the House and hon. Members, he will know that the Ministry's primary task is not merely to keep the House informed, but to perform its role of dealing with the outbreak. All its offices are doing their best to balance those heavy responsibilities.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As a member of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the scope of, and time allocated to, the motion that we will discuss on the behaviour of those Members who disrupted our proceedings? It was obvious to many of us on the Committee that there was concerted effort to engineer a crisis. Conservative members of the Committee wasted the equivalent of one full sitting on bogus points of order. After the disreputable behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), she confirmed in the newspapers that their action was part of an organised campaign by Opposition Whips. We now learn that their Chief Whip will defend her and her colleagues in the debate on that motion, but perhaps he should be in the dock with her.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes important points and those matters might be aired in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have to consider carefully their responsibilities to the House as a whole and, not least, to the Chair, whoever that may be. I am concerned, as is Mr. Speaker, about the difficult position in which the Standing Committee Chairman was placed. Members who perform that onerous role undertake great responsibilities on behalf of the House. They spend many long hours and are not remunerated. The least we owe them is to treat them with respect.

Foot and Mouth
1.18 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I want to update the House on the latest position on the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I also want to set out how the Government are taking forward disease control measures, given our increased knowledge about how the disease has spread.
As at 1 pm today, there have been 240 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom. Some 205,000 animals have been condemned for destruction, of which more than three quarters have already been slaughtered. That is out of a total UK cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million. Out of 160,000 livestock farms throughout the UK, 1,200 have been placed under restriction because of a confirmed or suspected case of the disease. We have been able to lift restrictions on more than 660 of those farms, leaving fewer than 550 farms still restricted.
This is a devastating disease for farming and for the rural communities affected. I express my deepest sympathy for those farmers who have lost their herds and flocks and for the wider farming communities who are going through a time of terrible uncertainty and distress.
I was sorry to learn of a confirmed case in France earlier in the week. I understand that, so far, there have been no further cases on the continent. We have stayed in close contact with the European Commission and other European countries' veterinary authorities. They have all strongly supported the firm action taken in the UK to control the disease and prevent its spread. From the outset, the Government have put firm disease control measures rapidly in place. Every action has been taken on the advice of the chief veterinary officer.
Each day, we have learned more about the outbreak. Epidemiological investigations and the incubation of disease in livestock have revealed the mechanisms by which the disease has spread. As our understanding has increased, I have shared new information with the House and given daily briefings.
The disease has spread mainly through movement of sheep and subsequent mixing of animals at a small number of livestock markets. It is important to stress that the vast majority of disease spread around the country took place before 20 February, when the first outbreak was discovered in Essex.
With increased knowledge about how the disease has spread, the Government have been able to refine disease control measures. In the infected areas, we have intensified controls. Where possible, we have allowed movement; for example, licensed movements to slaughter and short movements for welfare reasons.
The Government are working to five key disease control aims. The first is to keep free of disease those areas of the country still free of it, and the second is to halt the deterioration of the disease situation in Devon. Thirdly, we aim to stop the spread of the disease in the north of England and south-west Scotland. We are increasingly seeing localised spread from sheep flock to sheep flock in Scotland and from cattle to cattle in Cumbria. Fourthly, we want to minimise the spread of the disease from Longtown, Welshpool and Northampton markets, where it has been identified that infection has been present. The fifth aim is to eliminate infection in
1200
flocks that have passed through dealers known to have handled infected flocks. Of course, we will keep that strategy under constant review.
Taking each of those issues in turn, I shall set out the action that the Government are taking. In areas that are currently disease free, we will establish a new type of controlled area within which we hope eventually to allow a more normal level of activity both in agriculture and the rural community. But in the short term, the priority will be to avoid the risk of importing the disease into those clean areas by movements of animals from areas where there is infection. In addition, we will identify any high-risk movements of sheep that took place before 23 February. Those sheep will be destroyed to ensure that any possibility of infection is removed.
In Devon, the disease has been spreading from farm to farm due to the nature of agriculture, which means that there are many small farms, dense animal populations and movements of people and equipment. The strategy there will be to have an intensive patrol to all farms within 3 km of the infected farm. Each farm will be visited and inspected by veterinary or trained lay staff to ensure that cases of foot and mouth disease are identified as soon as possible to prevent onward spread.
The large focus on infection in the north of England and southern Scotland has been mostly concentrated in the sheep flock, although there is now cattle-to-cattle spread in Cumbria. There are a considerable number of cases in that area, with the potential for rapid spread to adjacent farms and even further afield. In this case, we must still ensure that infected animals are removed as quickly as possible, and to do that it will be necessary to destroy animals within the 3 km zones on a precautionary basis.
We now have clear evidence that sheep from markets in the Welshpool, Northampton and Longtown areas were exposed to disease and there is reason to suspect that, with the passage of time, a number of flocks into which they were imported may become infected. Those flocks will be removed as dangerous contacts. The same approach will be taken to sheep handled during the high-risk period by two major dealers associated with movements of infected sheep.
That is a policy of safety first. We are intensifying the slaughter of animals at risk in areas of the country—thankfully, still limited—where the disease has spread. Provided other areas remain disease free, we can, over the next week to 10 days, consider modifying restrictions in areas that have remained clear. We are deeply conscious of the animal welfare problems posed by the movement restrictions that we had to put in place for disease control reasons. We made arrangements last week for a number of localised licensed movements that, I hope, have alleviated a proportion of those problems. We were not, however, then able to provide for long-distance movements of animals caught in the wrong place, such as sheep on tack on dairy farms in England.
I shall publish later today the principles of a scheme for moving such animals, necessarily under very tight restrictions. The general principle will be that animals can be moved within a currently controlled area, or within currently disease-free areas, or into an area of higher disease risk, but not the other way round. It is my intention that farmers will be able to apply for licences for such movement over the weekend.

1201
Those arrangements will not, of course, deal with all the welfare problems that animals face. Some animals will be unable to move because of their condition; others will be unable to move because they are in infected areas. Where animal welfare problems cannot be alleviated by local action—meaning husbandry—we shall put in place arrangements for their disposal at public expense. That scheme will apply across the United Kingdom. Payments will be made for such animals, broadly on the lines of those adopted by the Government in East Anglia last autumn for the pig welfare disposal scheme.
I should emphasise that that is a voluntary scheme. It will be for individual farmers to decide whether to offer livestock to the scheme; acceptances will depend on certification by a vet that a welfare problem exists or is about to emerge. The licence to slaughter scheme introduced on 2 March has allowed the meat trade to begin operating again, although on a necessarily limited basis. The latest estimate of the Meat and Livestock Commission is that the pig sector is back to 78 per cent. of normal production, beef is at 68 per cent. and lamb at 30 per cent. of normal production. Veterinary advice does not recommend setting up a system of collection centres, although the option is being kept under review.
The control of foot and mouth disease is a major logistical exercise. In that task, we are drawing on the expertise of many public sector organisations, particularly those with field organisations or specialist knowledge and expertise, including the Ministry of Defence, the Environment Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission and my Ministry's agencies. The Ministry of Defence is deploying a logistic planning team, drawn from Land Command, to provide advice on the planning and management of civil and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food resources. We have also been offered support by a wider range of private organisations. In addition, there has been international support, particularly in the provision of veterinary staff to help with the disease control programme. I am enormously grateful for all that support.
Disease control measures have had a major impact on non-farm businesses in rural areas, particularly the tourism industry. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained to the House what the Government are doing to help those sectors. A new taskforce has met to take that work forward. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make further announcements next week. MAFF will continue to provide targeted advice and guidance from the chief veterinary officer on the risks associated with a range of activities in the countryside.
Movement control measures are keeping the spread of the disease to an absolute minimum. Slaughtering the disease out of infected farms and dangerous contacts is bearing down on it where it exists. An intensified slaughter policy in respect of animals thought to be at risk of developing the disease will add to this effort. As further cases emerge, we will learn more about the way in which the outbreak has developed, and that will inform any further refinements of the control policy as necessary. Of course, I will continue to keep the House informed.
Foot and mouth disease is a personal tragedy for those affected, and a body blow to the livestock industry as a whole. Again, I express the Government's deepest
1202
sympathy for those affected. I also express my support and appreciation of the state veterinary service, the farming organisations and all the others who are involved in combating the disease and dealing with its consequences. I continue to appeal to the public for their co-operation. It is important to remember that the key risk is contact with susceptible livestock. The precautionary measures should be focused on bearing down on that risk. There is no need to bring all aspects of rural activity to a standstill. While the disease is still with us, I renew my appeal to the public to avoid unnecessary visits to livestock farms, and where visits are unavoidable, to take the precautions advised.
I am grateful for the support of the House for the Government's actions. It is important that we set aside party politics in dealing with this outbreak. If the whole country works together and works constructively, we will get through this.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, and for making it available to me about half an hour ago. I start by expressing our appreciation of the work of his Ministry's officials, the vets and the others who are in the front line of the efforts being made to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease.
I reiterate our general support for the Minister and our backing for most of the specific actions that he has taken so far. On a personal note, I offer him my genuine sympathy for the substantial burden that he is carrying. The Opposition hope that the crisis is brought to a speedy and successful conclusion.
Last Sunday, the Minister said on television that the situation was under control. Since then, the number of confirmed foot and mouth cases has doubled. New cases are being confirmed this week at a much faster rate than in either of the two previous weeks. Disease has entered Cheshire for the first time, causing alarm and fear among farmers in that important livestock area. The first case is strongly suspected in my constituency in Suffolk, on the farm of Richard Easton, who today, like many others in a similar position, is extremely distressed.
Tens of thousands of diseased animals still await slaughter around the country, and tens of thousands of carcases of slaughtered animals are lying around in the open, awaiting disposal. Whatever the reason for the Minister's claim last Sunday that matters were under control, events have quickly shown how unfounded it was.
On the measures that the Minister announced, we support the Government's decision to embark on the slaughter of sheep that may have been infected through contact at the markets to which he referred. Further large-scale slaughter will clearly put huge extra strain on resources that are already stretched. I urge the Minister again to make wider use of the Army to assist the task than is currently proposed by the Government. The Army's skills and disciplines could be put to good use in the difficult task of laughter and disposal.
The Minister will be aware of the concern about the lengthy journeys involved in sending carcases for rendering. There are persistent reports that some of the lorries used are not properly sealed, and that that method of disposal therefore runs the risk of spreading infection further. Bearing in mind the backlog of carcases that is still building up, will he examine the possible use of burial

1203
on farms as an additional form of carcase disposal? That method was widely and successfully used in 1967. It is quicker and, in many respects, easier. The Army could be used immediately. Of course, I recognise that in some areas the water table may pose a problem. Will he ask the Environment Agency today to identify specific areas where burial might be dangerous on grounds of human or animal health? Will he then permit burial on farms as a means of disposal in areas that are not proscribed by the Environment Agency?
Does the Minister acknowledge that large-scale slaughter is distressing, especially for farmers who have reared their animals, but also for the wider public? Will the Government undertake a public information programme to explain more clearly the reasons for the slaughter, and why vaccination, which is widely canvassed, is not an acceptable alternative?
Will the Minister give greater discretion to vets who suspect the presence of foot and mouth disease in a herd to authorise immediate slaughter to reduce the risk of spreading infection posed by large and increasing numbers of diseased animals awaiting slaughter? Does he agree that time is of the essence in responding to all aspects of the crisis? Delays between suspecting and confirming a case, and between confirmation and slaughter, can mean that diseased animals are not slaughtered as quickly as is desirable for effective control of the outbreak.
Last week, the Minister asked me to suggest ways in which to extend existing compensation measures. I am sorry that I have not yet written to him. I warmly welcome his announcement about the pig welfare disposal scheme or a similar arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) recommended such action when he wound up the debate on 28 February. How quickly will the new arrangements become operational? How much money will be available for them?
I shall make two more specific suggestions on compensation; I may make others later. First, farmers whose cattle pass the age of 30 months suffer a sharp, unrecoverable loss of value. They are a definable, fairly small group, and they should be compensated for their loss. I stress that the suggestion is not intended to apply to farmers who can obtain licences to send their stock for slaughter. Help should be given to those who are unable to obtain or even apply for a licence.
Secondly, I recognise that industries other than farming are badly affected by the crisis. Tourism is the prime—but by no means the only—example. Cash flow problems are immediate and acute. As I said in a previous debate, many people who work in the public sector and receive their salary cheque on the 28th day of every month have no concept of the anxiety and agony of business men who simply do not know when they will receive their next income. The only permanent solution for such businesses is the control of foot and mouth disease. In the meantime, will the Government instruct local councils to grant businesses that have been hit by the crisis immediate relief from business rates?
The Minister knows that we have supported his efforts through his licensing scheme to facilitate the movement of ewes that are in the wrong place for lambing. I welcome the further measures that he has announced today. I share his anxiety that efforts to facilitate
1204
movement should not jeopardise other efforts to prevent the spread of the disease. I accept that, in some cases, requests for licences may have to be refused. Doubtless he, like me, has received reports of local administrative difficulties. Will his officials make every effort to ensure that issuing licences is not delayed by bureaucratic problems rather than veterinary advice?
I apologise for the length of my response, but much has happened in the seven days since Parliament last had the opportunity to question the Minister. There is some conflict between statements from the Minister for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Neither is present today. That conflict has caused confusion about the Government's policy on the countryside. Are people encouraged to visit it to support businesses there or discouraged from visiting it to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease? The Minister for the Environment called some parts of the countryside safe. How can any part be so described when foot and mouth disease may be incubating there? Will the Minister therefore clarify the Government's priorities, so that the public understand what is expected of them?
I agree with the Minister's statement about the gravity of the crisis. Its consequences go far beyond the livestock sector. He ended with an appeal to the whole country to work together, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I hope that that will be accompanied by a real effort in all Departments to work together and a willingness to use resources available from outside agencies and industries. I also hope that the Government will be willing to apply any lessons learned from the policy adopted in France and Ireland, if it appears that those measures are effective, and from reports written in the aftermath of the 1967 outbreak.
The whole nation has a deep interest in the urgent and successful resolution of this crisis. It rightly expects that no other considerations will be allowed to impede progress towards that outcome.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about public officials, who are working extremely hard to exterminate and resolve this terrible disease outbreak and to get everything back to normal. He is right that we should learn from the experience of others and previous episodes. I am guided, of course, by the key conclusions of the Phillips report. There are lessons to be learned from that in the management of animal disease. I am following very closely Lord Phillips' recommendations on managing the disease outbreak.
I want to do justice to the hon. Gentleman's range of perfectly proper questions. First, should people visit the countryside? Everybody wants to do what is right to help bring this outbreak to an end, and it is clear from what the tourist industry is saying to the Government that overseas visitors are not coming to our country because we have foot and mouth disease; they are even not coming to London. The domestic tourist market, which is about twice the size of the overseas one, is also constrained in the countryside. I think that that is largely because people want to try to help, so they are staying away. They are going much further than Government advice suggests.
The advice from Government is very clear: the public should stay away from farmed livestock. The risk is that the virus will be transferred from the livestock to the person, and that the person, unwittingly, will then transfer it in a sufficient amount to spread the disease. That does

1205
not mean that people should not visit market towns, or go to events in villages, or cannot admire the landscape or walk in the country where there is no livestock. The advice is very clear: stay away from farmed livestock.
On bureaucratic issues, the hon. Gentleman said that there were individual delays and anomalies. In a very fast-moving situation such as this, where control measures are having to be implemented and necessarily operated locally, there will be issues of dispute from time to time. He was right in our previous exchange when he referred to the micro-management of some of these issues. That is the correct approach. By and large, however, we have received an enormous amount of praise from farmers for the work of veterinarians and those in support. In these difficult circumstances, that speaks very well for both the farming industry and public services.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the over-30-months scheme. I cannot say anything about that today, but I promise to keep the matter under review. He also asked about the cash flow of other industries and countryside businesses that are not directly agricultural. That is being examined by the taskforce that has just been set up.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the welfare disposal scheme. Having set up the scheme in the circumstances of the classical swine fever outbreak, I envisaged right from the beginning of this outbreak that we might want to use such a scheme, as it was necessary for movement restrictions to endure and to deal with the problem of sheep on winter grazing. So it has turned out. I emphasise again that the scheme is voluntary, but it is intended to help very hard-pressed farmers and to prevent unnecessary cruelty to and suffering of animals.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Starting when?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman heckles me about when the measures will start. They will all be under way as quickly as possible. I am reporting to the House the on-going work that the Government are undertaking. We are getting on with it.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to the immediate slaughter of animals that a veterinarian believes have the clinical signs of foot and mouth disease. In the case of almost all the cattle and some 80 per cent. of animals that have been slaughtered, the request to slaughter was submitted on the advice of the veterinarian who made the clinical examination. We do not wait for the tests to confirm the virus, although they are undertaken. If a professional veterinarian identifies the disease on clinical examination, the request to slaughter is made straight away.
On alternative strategies, I shall explain why it is necessary to slaughter the animals as soon as the disease is found, which comes as a shock to people who are not familiar with the industry. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have repeatedly explained that the animal breathes out the virus, and once it is dead the problem is of a different order. Thus it is necessary to kill the animal as soon as the disease is discovered.
The hon. Gentleman and I have a similar view on the vaccination strategy, because we are following the same professional advice. The view in the industry is
1206
unanimous. I am trying to arrange a short presentation on vaccination strategies for the media representatives who attend my daily press briefings so that the issues can be set out and those who report these matters are exposed to the same advice that Ministers receive. If parliamentarians would find it helpful to have such a presentation next week, I am willing to arrange it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I take that as assent, so we shall do that.
I appreciate that it is one of the most harrowing things for a farmer to see his flock or herd slaughtered, even if it is for understandable disease control purposes. It is incredibly harrowing to experience on-farm slaughter, and having the animals remain on the farm to await removal only adds to the misery. We are examining further disposal routes, and we intend to make use of burial. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask me about burial. We are also looking into the possibility of opening further rendering plants specifically for this purpose. I understand that we are about to have a plant up and running in Devon, so the movement of animals from Devon up to the north will no longer be necessary. We are in discussions with the Environment Agency about what would affect the water table and what would be safe. We are also considering other routes of disposal.
There is much concern about the movement of carcases in wagons. It is not the journey that poses the risk. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows of a lorry that has not been sheeted properly or is not as it should be, I urge him or anyone else to take the lorry's licence number and report it. A Member of Parliament can report it to me.
We have received help from the armed services for veterinary and logistical purposes. We have arrangements with the Ministry of Defence, and can call on the Army for other help if it is needed.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman now has a case near his constituency in Suffolk, because that area has thankfully been free up till now. The disease must have been incubating in an animal for a fortnight or so before it emerged. He will have heard me say that it is our intention to pursue dangerous contacts that have gone into areas that we believe to be clear, which may include his constituency, and to take the precautionary measure of purchasing the animals for destruction. Our deliberate strategy is to try to keep the clear areas free of the disease.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the outbreak was under control. I do not want to get into a semantic quarrel, but when I say that it is absolutely under control, I mean precisely that. The movement controls that are in place are very severe indeed. The fact that more disease emerges does not mean that the outbreak is not under control.
There are two factors about which no one can be certain. The first is the extent of the infectivity that is still out there, and the measures that I have announced today are designed to bear down on that on a precautionary basis. The second is the geographical location of infectivity. However, we know that there are specific problems in three areas—on the English-Welsh border, in Devon and in Cumbria. What I have announced today is intended to bear down on those specific problems.
Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, to date, Norfolk has not suffered an outbreak of the disease. However, I was pleased to hear him state the precautionary principle,

1207
because the lessons of BSE must be learned. I understand the commercial pressures on the tourist industry, and the despair being felt in my constituency, where we rely very much on the weekend visitor. I hope that he will affirm that he will make it his first, second and third priority to ensure that areas that currently are free of the disease remain so.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the first priority is to bear down on the disease and eliminate it, and to avoid anything that risks spreading it. I am especially concerned to ensure that the disease-free areas stay disease free. That is why we are tracing the movement into those areas of animals that are suspected of being at risk. We are purchasing those animals for destruction. It is the Government's clear intention to keep disease-free areas disease free.
Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his customary courtesy in providing an early copy of it.
The Minister has announced plans for the slaughter of overwintering ewes in restricted areas. Will he confirm that that policy will be implemented only as a last resort and that, if possible, other measures will be introduced to avoid taking what is clearly a drastic measure?
Is the Minister aware that sheep prices in the north of England are collapsing because of the sheer number of sheep being moved under licence to abattoirs? It is possible that the low prices will mean that there is little benefit to farmers in sending sheep there. Is he also aware of scare stories to the effect that even grain cannot be exported because of the possibility of spreading the disease? I hope that we can put such stories into perspective.
What assurances can the Minister give the House about the contingency planning measures that were in place prior to the outbreak? For instance, after the 1967 outbreak, it was recommended that epidemiological teams comprising personnel from various bodies should be set up. The teams were to have two main functions. The relevant report stated:
"In an outbreak they would collect information by studying the outbreak from the start, predicting its probable development and so provide information which would help in formulating measures to control it. They would also collect data for the purpose of future epidemiological studies. The teams should gain experience in working together before outbreaks occur so that they would be fully prepared when their services were required."
Will the Minister confirm that those teams were put in place, and that some of the information now available stems from their formation?
The report from which I have quoted also recommended considerable additional research into foot and mouth disease, but we learned today that the last remaining independent research facility, CAMBAC, is about to close. It was supported by MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission, and was a very valuable source of research, especially into pigs. At a time when we need more research and information capable of being disseminated throughout the world, does the Minister agree that it is a great shame that that facility should be closing?
Mr. Brown: I will inquire into what the hon. Gentleman says about the research programme, as I do
1208
not have the answer to hand. I can assure him that epidemiological work is under way in the Ministry. In part, it is informing the decisions that I have announced today.
Although there is a dispute between the UK and Morocco over a shipment of grain, I assure the hon. Gentleman that grain poses no risk whatsoever of spreading foot and mouth disease. That is being explained to the Moroccan authorities.
On the movement of sheep in their winter quarters, there is an order of decision making. If we can safely move them, we will, but each case must be looked at very carefully. We must ensure that lorries are disinfected, that animals are not carrying the disease and that they will not move to areas where there is a risk of infectivity. All that must be considered case by case.
We are looking at providing advice and what other support we can, although it is necessarily limited, to aid husbandry on site, if that is possible. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is not always possible, but there may be local solutions that can be adopted, including temporary housing and the bringing in of specialists to assist with lambing. The third option—it is the last resort—is mercy killing.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is a sombre statement, but I am sure that farmers in Cumbria will accept the new controls because they want to get ahead of the disease and to get it over with as quickly as possible. We still have a problem with slaughter and disposal. I have a constituent whose beasts were diagnosed three days ago and have still to be slaughtered.
Can the Minister put the outbreak in context? It is difficult in Cumbria to put it in context. What percentage of farms nationally are affected by the disease? I know that it is difficult—the Minister is very busy—but if he had the opportunity some time to come to speak to farmers in Cumbria, they would welcome the opportunity to tell him what the problems are.
Mr. Brown: I would like to meet farmers who are personally affected. I try to meet farmers to discuss their problems, but I must stay here and manage the disease outbreak first. However, I would like to visit farmers as soon as I can, including my hon. Friend's constituents, to hear from them at first hand. Although it is hard for the farmers who are affected, at the moment, less than 1 per cent. of all livestock farms are under restriction, or affected by the outbreak.
My officials are working now on ensuring that we can speed up the slaughter and disposal arrangements. There is a serious problem in Cumbria. I want to ensure that we have all the resources necessary to deal with what has emerged and with what we are trying to prevent from emerging.
Mr. Tony Baldry: What financial help will the Government offer to those whose livelihoods and lives are being devastated by the consequences of foot and mouth disease? When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for tourism, came to the House yesterday, the best that he could do was to say that the Government would be
"looking sympathetically at … possible options."—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1036.]

1209
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that those living in the countryside want not sympathy from the Government, but some action now.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has appreciated how serious the situation is now and the need to get money to those who are affected. May we have some clear indication from the Government that they recognise that many in the countryside need financial help today?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Prince of Wales. It was a kind and generous thing for the Prince to do. I appreciate it very much. I think that the whole House knows that he has extraordinary sympathy for and empathy with farming and the rural community. I met him yesterday and was able to thank him personally for what he has done.
I want to do what I can to help. For all the animals that the Government are purchasing for slaughter because of the need to control the disease, we will pay 100 per cent. compensation. We have drawn down the agrimonetary payments. Of course, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease has informed that. We are spending money on the welfare scheme that I have announced today. That will be at a cost—an unquantifiable cost—to the taxpayer. I am looking at what more I can do, but the hon. Gentleman should not overlook the substantial public expenditure implications of what I have announced today.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Tomorrow, I shall visit the Grannox rendering plant in my constituency, which is taking thousands of slaughtered animals for disposal. Will my right hon. Friend put on record his recognition of the efforts of the work force at Grannox in dealing with the problem, which, as hon. Members can imagine, is not one of the best jobs in the world at the moment? Does he also appreciate my constituents' concerns about the transportation through my constituency of so many thousands of slaughtered animals and the environmental impact of processing the carcases? Can he give my constituents assurances on those issues?
Mr. Brown: The operation poses no danger at all to my hon. Friend's constituents. I can give him that assurance. I should also like to place on the record my thanks to the work force in his constituency. As he will know, I visited the plant a few months ago, and took the Spanish Minister with me to see it. It is a very impressive operation.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The Minister touched on alternative strategies. Is he aware that there is very strong anecdotal evidence, but not the evidence of trials, that a homeopathic remedy called borax can protect animals from the threat of foot and mouth, that it was used extensively in the 1967 outbreak, and that 7,000 farmers are using it now? Will he undertake to conduct trials to establish whether it is effective, rather than simply relying on anecdotal evidence? Will he so instruct the chief veterinary officer? Is he aware that in the 1967 outbreak, a farmer near Chester unwittingly used borax in a feed, and that although the animals on every farm around had to be put down, that farmer's cows never
1210
caught the disease? The reason why that happened was a mystery to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials.
Mr. Brown: I listen to all views on the matter. The Phillips report says that Ministers should keep an open mind about alternative theories, and should not polarise debate between the professional and official view and other points of view. I shall therefore draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chief veterinary officer, upon whose professional advice I am relying in handling the disease outbreak.
Mr. Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that six farms in my constituency in Newcastle—in the area where the infection probably began—have been affected, probably all by windborne infection. Has he discussed with his meteorological advisers the weather ahead of us, as the second two weeks in March are usually the windiest part of the year? Is there a potential extra risk because of the weather? If so, will he continue his tough measures, including keeping people out of the countryside wherever possible?
Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that windborne disease presents very little further risk to his constituents, because, of course, the animals that caused it were killed some time ago. The risk of windborne infectivity comes specifically from pigs. The disease is far more infectious in pigs than it is in cattle and sheep, and a large number of pigs can pump out enough virus for it to form an infective dose and be carried quite some distance by the wind if conditions are right—or wrong, depending on the point of view. Of course we are examining that issue, but it is specifically relevant to large concentrations of pigs. Fortunately—if then is anything fortunate in this—the main problem with which we have to cope now is predominantly, but not entirely, to do with sheep.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I am grateful for the Minister's statement on the movement of in-lamb ewes back to their home farms, which is particularly important. However, as thousands of ewes from my constituency are now in Pembrokeshire, we have huge logistical problems. One haulier told me that he had to make at least 12 journeys. Will the Minister ensure that those journeys are expedited—under Army escort if necessary? Will he also define "movement into an area of higher risk"? What does that mean? As a vast part of Powys could be covered by that classification, could ewes be moved into an infected area? If lambs are killed in an infected area, what percentage of the market price will farmers receive for them? Will he also give us some evidence—I ask this on behalf of my, hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—of a link between Welshpool market and outbreaks in Cheshire and Shropshire?
Mr. Brown: We know that infectivity has been transferred through Welshpool market. There is the possibility of a link with the outbreak in Cheshire, and the veterinary authorities are looking at that now. I promise to convey the answer to the hon. Gentleman once we know it. At the moment there is a suspicion, not a confirmation.

1211
The price for animals that the Government are slaughtering to control the disease is the animals' market value. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him indicative prices—and they are only indicative, because such matters can go to arbitration if there is a dispute—I will make sure that he gets that information.
It is vital that escorted journeys are strictly controlled. Nothing would be worse for the control of the outbreak than to allow people to start moving around in an uncontrolled way animals that might be carrying the infection.
Mr. Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. He is fully aware that, as of this morning, the number of cases in my constituency has risen to 32. I am sure that he will want to place on record his thanks to the local authority, which is co-ordinating all the sterling work in that area.
I have been informed by the local authority that it is taking two days to move from slaughter to burning, but I am told by farmers that it takes considerably longer than that. Those at the sharp end—the farmers—believe that we do not have this fully under control and are not operating as efficiently as possible. If we are to move to wider-area slaughter, there is a need for more resources and for personnel to carry out that work. I hope that if we undertake that, additional resources will be put into the areas.
On the disinfection of vehicles, my area is at breaking point. Everyone is doing their best, but I believe that additional resources are needed now. We need to say how quickly we will get compensation to those who have lost their livelihood by losing their stock. Some of the financial institutions are not being as helpful as I had hoped.
Finally, farmers who have been told that their stock is infected need information that is easy to understand. At present, they are having to plough through tomes of paperwork to understand the process.
Mr. Brown: I have written to every farmer trying to give information about the workings of the helplines and the front-line advice. The Minister of State, Baroness Hayman, is meeting representatives of the main agricultural banks to urge them to do what they can to help, particularly with cash flow, in the present outbreak.
I have asked that where the state has purchased the animals and an agreement has been made, the payment be made to the farmer as quickly as it can be expedited. I have also asked to be told the average time it is currently taking to make payments, but I do not have that information yet.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that vehicles have to be disinfected for every journey. The extra resources that he pleads for are coming. He is right—but we must remember that our priority is to get the animals killed to prevent the spread of the disease. At the moment there is a delay between killing the animals and moving them. I am trying to shorten that delay, and I hope that it will be possible to prevent dead animals from remaining on farms for an inconvenient and distressing length of time.
1212
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking local authorities, not just those employed by central Government, for their very hard work. I discussed the situation yesterday with Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland.
Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister accept that there is a good degree of confusion, and perhaps even anger, among farmers and people in the tourist industry? Both occupations are immensely important in my constituency. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that the countryside was open for business, and the Minister has reiterated a similar message today. Does he accept that that is demonstrably not the case?
In my constituency, the Badminton three-day event, which is the largest single sporting event in the world, has been cancelled. Tomorrow's visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Chippenham, a town of 30,000 people, has been cancelled. The countryside march, involving 500,000 people coming to London, has been cancelled. Church services across my constituency have been cancelled, and schools are closed. It is simply not the case that the countryside is open for business.
If that were so, however, would the Minister really welcome it? Will not the tourist industry, for example, recover only when this appalling disease has been finally eradicated from the countryside? In the meantime, no one should try to pretend that it is perfectly acceptable for people to trudge all over the countryside—the roads, that is, not the fields; people know that they must not go near livestock farms.
As going anywhere in the countryside carries a strong risk of spreading the disease, no one wants to go to Chippenham. Surely the message ought to be that the countryside is closed for business until such time as this killer disease has been eradicated.
Mr. Brown: I agree with the final point, but not with the others. I do not think that we shall re-establish our tourist industries and other rural businesses properly until the outbreak has been exterminated and we can demonstrate that we can maintain that position, but there is no reason why people should not visit Chippenham. Indeed, there is no reason why people should not come to London, and no reason why church services should be cancelled. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the countryside march?"] That was not cancelled at the Government's request; nor have I, as the Minister, asked for racing events to be cancelled.
If schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been closed as a result of foot and mouth, will he give me their addresses so that I can take up the closures with the Department for Education and Employment as a matter of urgency? There is no disease control reason why schools should be closed.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, the discovery of foot and mouth disease in Cheshire has been a great blow, although there may be a direct link with the markets that he has mentioned. He will also know that the veterinary investigation service is anxious for culls to take place speedily when clinical signs of the disease are readily identifiable. Will he please do all he can to ensure that if

1213
a vet has identified clinical signs, the cull follows as quickly as possible—and that, preferably, disposal by some means follows before long?
Mr. Brown: When a veterinary inspector identifies clinical signs, killing of the animals can be authorised there and then. For 80 per cent. of all animals that are culled to control the disease, authorisation is given there and then on the basis of a clinical inspection by a vet.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that the outbreak has reached Cheshire; it must have been incubating there for a while, and now it has come to fruition. I hope that we shall be able to contain it, and then to exterminate it and keep as much of Cheshire as possible disease free.
Mr. John Burnett: People will be relieved to learn of today's announcement of the introduction of a voluntary welfare disposal scheme. Will the Minister confirm that it will cover all uninfected animals that come not only from uninfected farms but from the huge infected areas?
I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of introducing the scheme as soon as possible. There is a build-up of animals in farms in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country. That applies especially to pig farms. Last week, about 2,000 pigs were born in my constituency. Nature does not stand still: inexorably, the numbers rise.
Will the Minister tell us when the scheme will be up and running? Will he also tell us that it will be as unbureaucratic as possible? Will he please assure my constituents, and constituents throughout the country, that it will apply to pigs, sheep and beef, and—I beg of him—that it will be introduced without delay?
Mr. Brown: The scheme will be introduced without delay, and it will apply to all infected species. The intervention board is working on the plan now, and I hope to have it up and running within days. As I have said, it will apply across the country and is open to all species, but a vet will have to certify that a real welfare risk exists and is being dealt with. I understand the special importance of the scheme to the pig sector because of the impact of movement restrictions on the sector. The model closely follows the first use of the scheme in East Anglia during the outbreak of classical swine fever.
Mr. Win Griffiths: There have been no problems in my constituency so far, but people are concerned when they hear of the spread of the disease throughout the countryside. To be fair to business people in the countryside, however, they fully support all that the Government are doing.
Only this morning I received a call from a business man who said that he had lost 70 per cent. of his business on the day the outbreak was declared, but nevertheless he wanted all that the Government were doing to be carried through. His main concern was about the need to make clear where people may or may not go in the countryside. There is undoubtedly confusion about that, and he, like me, would like much more use to be made of local media. Would that not make the position plain, and maintain
1214
confidence in what the Government are doing? Let us hope that the outbreak could then be brought swiftly to an end.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, let me say that I require short questions. Some hon. Members will be disappointed today, but the shorter the questions, the more hon. Members I can call.
Mr. Brown: My advice—my appeal—to the public is to stay away from farm livestock. That does not mean staying away from every market town or village; it means exactly what it says.
My hon. Friend's constituent has my sympathy. What we are doing is incredibly hard, but it is necessary. It is in everyone's best interests for us to ensure that this disease is extinguished.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The organisers of the countryside rally did not need to wait for the Government to ask them to postpone it. They postponed it themselves, because they are responsible, they love the countryside and they did not want the disease to spread.
Will the Minister ensure that the money he has announced so far will be available as speedily as possible, and that the taskforce knows of the urgent need of those involved in tourism" Some businesses have only one week left before they must close their doors and lay off staff. Rose County Foods, an abattoir in my constituency, had to lay off 100 workers for two weeks, and is only now starting to take them on again. Much of the meat that it kills and bones normally goes to Northern Ireland. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister to ensure that food supplies are properly checked by hygiene specialists, so that it is clear that they are not diseased, can be packaged in Northern Ireland and distributed to a much wider market?
Mr. Brown: Those are all fair points. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is working with officials on the relationship between Great Britain's and Northern Ireland's trade. I can give the hon. Gentleman the other assurances that he seeks, including the one about work between Ministers in my Department and the agricultural banks on the cash flow problem that he correctly raised.
The only point that I make about the countryside march is that the Government did not formally ask for its cancellation. Let me express my support and gratitude to the organisers, who took what would have seemed to them to be a responsible approach, and tried to do what they could to help the countryside through these difficult times.
Mr. Mark Todd: Farmers need precise information about the risks that they face. Concern has been expressed in my constituency—which is, in part, an infected area—about the movement of lorries from places where there is known to be infection towards livestock abattoirs that are currently operating. We need clarity about how the system works; we also need resources to deal with the strategy set out by my right hon. Friend. Thus far, there is doubt about whether such

1215
resources are available to a sufficient extent, and in the right places, to enable the job that my right hon. Friend described earlier to be done.
Mr. Brown: The resources are being gathered. Where we need more, we are getting more. There is no constraint: the Government intend to defeat this disease.
There are at present no unlicensed movements of livestock in the country—or there should not be. I am grateful to the police for stopping livestock vehicles to check that they are licensed, and that their arrangements are not unlawful. Nothing will perpetuate this disease outbreak longer than the unauthorised movements of livestock that might be at risk.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding the fact that some of the countryside may be open for business, the New Forest is most definitely closed. Indeed, the district council has written to several rural businesses specifically asking them to stop their operations. Will the Minister undertake to look at the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) at the Dispatch Box yesterday for providing relief to those businesses?
Mr. Brown: The Government are doing what they can to help. We have set up a taskforce to look at the broader issues. My advice is clear. We all have a part to play in explaining this clearly. The disease risk is from the public coming into contact with farmed livestock and spreading the disease. To avoid that risk I am appealing to everyone to stay away from farmed livestock.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the licensed movement of tack animals, particularly from my constituency—a matter already raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). Large numbers of sheep are there and my farmers will much welcome it. If those animals have a definite welfare problem, what price will be paid in compensation? Will it be the market price, as if they had foot and mouth, or not? Will my right hon. Friend ensure full veterinary attendance before a movement takes place? It appears that at Llanidloes abattoir something went wrong and sheep with foot and mouth ended up there and caused serious problems. Finally, my right hon. Friend mentioned that he was going to pursue with two dealers the question of what stock they had distributed around the country. Is he willing to name them?
Hon. Members: Too long.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a difficult time, but asking three questions is going over the ration.
Mr. Brown: The movements of animals that were at risk were unwitting. I am not allocating blame; I am explaining the problem and how the Government will deal with it. All current movements must be authorised by a vet. It strikes me as highly suspicious when 23 sheep showing symptoms of the disease turn up in one batch in one abattoir with a certificate from the farmer saying that they were disease free when they left.
1216
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about movements from winter holdings. These are intractable problems. The order of dealing with them is to get movement, if we can; to manage them in their geographical location, if that can be done, which requires the co-operation of the dairy farmer; and, if that cannot be done, as an act of mercy the animals have to be killed.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to get a grip on the other Departments that should be helping rather than hindering him? Yesterday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told people that all the beaches were open. The National Trust has closed everything, including the beaches in my constituency that have no agricultural land adjoining them. People arriving at those beaches will probably go off and get access to the beaches over agricultural land. It is no good the Home Office saying that there is no need to make any changes to election arrangements. We have town council, district council and county council elections happening now. We need action and advice.
Mr. Brown: It is very important that our response to the disease outbreak is proportionate and targeted at the real actions that can spread the disease. We are all on the same side in this. It is important that we talk to each other across Government, with local authorities and across parties to ensure that advice is clear and sensible. If there is no farmed livestock on a beach, it is perfectly reasonable for people to visit it and walk along it. I understand how, when the disease broke out, people wanted to do everything that they could to help, which meant acting on the precautionary principle. I am grateful for that, but we need to make sure that the actions that we are taking now, all of which are designed to be helpful, are targeted at the real problems associated with the spread of the disease.
Charlotte Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend explain the criteria that are being used to select rendering plants to deal with infected carcases? Will he give some assurance to my local farmers, who are very concerned that a local rendering plant in Cheddleton will be taking infected carcases? I am delighted that he will allow farmers to bury carcases, as they did during the 1967 outbreak, so long as the water table makes that permissible.
Mr. Brown: Burial is a route of disposal that is being considered, but it would have to be used under strictly controlled conditions. I can announce that we shall make use of burial in Cumbria, because we have found a possible site. There will certainly not be a blanket presumption that that route can be used in all places. Where it can be used and where it is appropriate, it will be used, but under controlled circumstances.
Nothing that is done with rendering plants will be done in such a way as to risk the spread of the disease. Our plan is to extinguish the disease, not perpetuate it. The considerations involved in selecting plants are wide ranging. We have to look at a number of aspects, but clearly the geographical location of the plant is one factor that we are bearing in mind.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister totally satisfied that there is complete availability of disinfectant

1217
where it is required—at abattoirs, on farms and so on? Will he make it clear whether he now considers it necessary to have disinfectant used at exit and entry points from and into the United Kingdom as well as internally and domestically?
Mr. Brown: Very, very firm action has been taken by my Department to prevent the disease from leaving the United Kingdom now that we know that it is here. As for its being brought in, it is here already, and we are setting out to exterminate it. I have had the availability of disinfectant looked at closely. There is sufficient available. We have licensed for use new disinfectants that will serve our purpose in combating the disease. There were distribution problems, but I believe that the industry has overcome them.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his solid principle of safety first, and urge him to continue to stick to it? May I ask him about the particular position of the small businesses of contractors who are excluded from farm premises and are of necessity losing all their livelihood? Will he ensure that the process of diagnosis, slaughter and disposal is made as speedy as possible, in the interests of all?
Mr. Brown: That is exactly what I am trying to do. We are working hard to overcome the logistical difficulties. As for the consequential effect on small businesses that would normally rely on working normally, by far the best step that I can take is to get the countryside back to completely normal working as soon as possible.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to make a particular point about a slaughterhouse in my constituency that sends trailers to south Wales and Devon with sides of beef for Tesco, and naturally they have to return. There is a risk or fear of contamination. What steps are taken to ensure that the vehicles are properly disinfected?
If we are to have elections on 3 May, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Home Secretary that an application for a postal vote be sent to all farmers on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food lists?
Mr. Brown: I am very keen to make sure that we stay together as one country and one community, that everybody is treated fairly, and that if they face difficulties, in as much as they can be helped, they should be helped. Yes, we inspect vehicles to make sure they are disinfected. That is an obligation on the industry. I cannot be certain that every vehicle is inspected, but we are in no doubt of the importance of making sure that vehicles are cleaned out properly and thoroughly disinfected.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I do not know the circumstances that led to the appalling incident in Llanidloes in which a farmer took 23 sheep with suspected foot and mouth to the abattoir. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me what information farmers are given about the disease by way of leaflets, videos
1218
or whatever? They might not have encountered the disease before but they must be as vigilant as can be; early detection will mean that we can soon stamp out the disease.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to appeal for vigilance. He is also right to say that many younger farmers will not have seen foot and mouth disease previously. I have written to every farmer in the country to explain the symptoms and to set out where advice can be found. I hope that is of some practical value.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Setting aside the strong rumours that officials were inquiring as to the availability of railway sleepers suitable for funeral pyres three weeks before the first outbreak, will the Minister now answer the question that I tabled last week? I asked him when he was first advised of a potential risk to animal health from imports from Africa.
Mr. Brown: If there can be a red herring in an animal disease outbreak, that is it. This is nothing to do with imports from Africa, as far as anyone in the Ministry knows. The strain of virus, which has, of course, now been typed, is found in about 23 regions right around the world. Work is going on to find out, first, how it got into our country—I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it must have come from abroad, as it could not possibly have been incubating here for 30 years or whatever. Secondly, we want to know how the disease got to the point of first infectivity, which we believe to be the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall. We are all too familiar with the rest of the story. Work is being done in the Ministry. When it is complete, I shall consult on it. I promise that the hon. Gentleman will be among those who are consulted.
The business about railway sleepers being purchased because we knew the disease was there three weeks before anything was said is another red herring.
Mr. David Maclean: When the Minister looks at the map of the outbreaks in Cumbria and then applies the policy of killing everything within 3 km of every outbreak or suspected outbreak, he will know that nothing much will be left in between. I and my constituents will, with deep regret, support that policy of complete extermination, provided it can be done quickly.
In Cumbria, the story is that farmers spot definite foot and mouth, there are delays in having it confirmed—understandably—and vets do not have the authority on the spot to begin the slaughter. Please can they be given that authority? We trust Ministry vets to know what they are doing—let them bring in the slaughter teams and kill the animals immediately so that the disease is not spread.
May we please have the powers to close all the roads around the area? I know that MAFF is considering that. We need those powers this afternoon—Cumbria county council is begging for them.
Finally, I know that I should not bounce the Minister at the Dispatch Box but in view of the severity of his announcement for my constituency, I should be very grateful if he could spare 15 minutes later today or at any time tonight to meet me.
Mr. Brown: The situation is extraordinarily serious in Cumbria—including in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. I express my sorrow for what has happened

1219
to his constituents and also my solidarity with them. I give the right hon. Gentleman this commitment: if I visit Cumbria, as I am trying to do, to meet farmers' representatives—clearly, it will have to be their representatives—I shall do so on all-party basis, so I shall make sure that all the county's Members of Parliament have the opportunity to be present and to take part.
I am not advised that road closures are necessary for disease control reasons. On the question of veterinary authority, I am advised that in 80 per cent. of all the current cases, slaughter of the animals was carried out because of clinical examination by the vet, on the spot, there and then.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that when members of the public ask regional MAFF offices in north Wales for advice about the problem, they are referred to the offices of Members of Parliament? Surely that is not good enough. Will he ensure that people are given up-to-date advice? I realise that it is a fast-moving scene, but please can better advice be given to the offices and can they pass it on when necessary?
Finally, why was no Wales Office Minister formally invited to join the taskforce yesterday?
Mr. Brown: My understanding is that it is a United Kingdom taskforce and that the devolved authorities are represented on it. I met the Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs yesterday to discuss the agricultural aspects of this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we meet monthly to discuss the agenda for the Council of Ministers, but we also deal with other agriculture matters. Much of our time yesterday was taken up in discussing a co-ordinated approach on the foot and mouth outbreak. That is especially important because one of the centres of difficulty straddles the England-Wales border, while another straddles the England-Scotland border.
Mr. Anthony Steen: South Hams is mercifully free from foot and mouth all the area south of Dartmoor is also clear. Licences are the problem. Will the Minister ensure that licences for pig slaughter are speeded up for the local abattoir in the area that is free of foot and mouth—Henry Lang in Ashburton? It could be more fully used.
Secondly, will the Minister issue licences for farmers to move animals from one part of the constituency to another, where the distance is more than 6 km? Many farmers have animals stranded in various parts of my constituency that cannot be brought back to base.
Mr. Brown: I hope that the announcement I made today will deal with the second of the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, there is already some limited local movement—within a 5 km radius or for a 10 km road journey. Today's announcement is intended to help in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.
On the hon. Gentleman's first question, licensing is an issue for local authorities on the spot. However, I shall ensure that the constituency case he raises is drawn to the attention of the local supervising authorities.
Mr. Duncan: The position of pigs is desperate and urgent. Welcome though the pig disposal scheme is, we
1220
cannot afford to wait a few days for its implementation. It really must happen immediately. Like the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), I have a farm in my constituency where there are 2,000 pigs. The farmer has no money at all; he has one day's feed left and by tomorrow night he will not know what to do. Can the Minister assure the House that the scheme will be implemented within 48 hours and that that farmer and others—simply as a result of a visit from a vet—can slaughter their animals in the knowledge that they will receive proper compensation?
Mr. Brown: The scheme about which the hon. Gentleman asks is voluntary; it is not one whereby we compulsorily purchase the animals. The scheme is voluntary, and application for it is a matter of commercial judgment for the farmer. I shall get it open as soon as I can. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that officials are working on it now, both at MAFF and at the Intervention Board. To make use of the arrangements, a veterinary certificate is required to state that the welfare of animals is compromised or at risk of being compromised.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point that has been causing concern? He will recall that where a farmer is on a premium scheme and an animal is lost through force majeure, the farmer has to give notice to MAFF, and there is a great deal of attendant paperwork. When a farmer has had his animals slaughtered, would it be possible for MAFF to deem that due notice had been given, instead of the farmer having to sit down straight away and do the paperwork?
Mr. Brown: We are looking at how to protect the position of the premium scheme for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the technical point that he raises, but I can state the principle: the Commission has allowed us to invoke the force majeure rules on the five principal livestock premium schemes. In principle, the case that he describes will receive the premium—unless there is some caveat that I do not know about. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the administration of the scheme.
Mr. Brian Cotter: As the Minister knows, the farming crisis also affects small businesses and tourism. Will the Government consider relief on rates, VAT and business rates? Councils would like to give business rate relief, but they do not have the money. Will he urge fellow Ministers to promote the marketing of tourism, both now and, especially, at the end of the crisis?
Mr. Brown: The taskforce led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is considering all those issues. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's final point—about the need to get things moving again once we come through the crisis. Clearly, there is a role for marketing and for tourist promotion.
Mr. David Prior: There is no foot and mouth in my constituency, but there are several sheep farmers whose ewes are now lambing. The lambs are dying at night because the farmers cannot move the ewes back to the lambing sheds, as they cannot get a response

1221
from MAFF to get licences. Will the Minister assure us that he will put more resources into the handling of those licence applications?
Mr. Brown: Yes, we are doing so as a matter of urgency.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Minister rightly wants to maintain the atmosphere of national unity, which has been prevalent in the House today, will he very gently talk to the Prime Minister and suggest that he heed the advice from the political leaders of parties in local government that it is not appropriate to hold the county council elections on 3 May?
Mr. Brown: The best that I can do for the hon. Gentleman is to forward the representations that he has made.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister is absolutely right to respond to the dire situation by announcing today an enhanced, more proactive slaughter policy, but may I ask him a question somewhat the converse of that asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? Will he assure the House that he has adequate legal cover for the extended slaughter programme as dangerous contact animals may be involved? In the interests of natural justice, will he tell the House what representations by farmers may be entertained in borderline cases? Clearly, farmers in such cases do not want to lose their stock, but, perhaps rightly, Ministry vets insist that the animals should be slaughtered.
Mr. Brown: That is a very difficult matter. I am satisfied that, on the basis of legal advice, I certainly have the powers to implement what I have announced to the House, because the overriding priority is, of course, the national interest and the Government's legal obligation to exterminate the disease. I am trying to deal as sympathetically as I can with the hard cases that inevitably occur in such circumstances, but I must tell everyone that the extermination of the disease has to be my first priority.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister recognise that where ewes are trapped a long way from their holdings, they may be not on extensive farms but on small parcels of land? They may be on bare earth or stubble; and they may have been fed on turnip or beet tops, but now probably nothing more than big-bale straw. Many of those ewes and their lambs are dying, so the welfare problem is arising now. Will he ensure that the licence applications are attended to very quickly, that farmers to do not have to use a computer—80 per cent. of them in my constituency do not have one—and that transport arrangements are facilitated, because it is literally a matter of hours as to whether they can get their flocks back in time? If they cannot do so, the slaughter will be much more extensive than anyone would like, and rotting and bloated ewes and lambs in the field is the last thing that we want as it will create yet another major disposal problem.
Mr. Brown: Everything that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, and we shall do our best, where we can, to
1222
get the animals moved, but—he knows what the "but" is—that must be done consistently with the overriding importance of controlling the spread of the disease. With that very important caveat, I agree with all that he has said.
Mr. William Cash: The chairman of my local NFU, Mr. Graham Clay, with whom I had a discussion this morning, is deeply concerned about the delays, which have been mentioned time and again today, especially as there is now foot and mouth in my constituency. Does the Minister accept that the delays represent one of the most critical features of the problem? They must be dealt with, and speed is of the essence in the slaughter and throughout the entire process. Does the Minister accept that there could be a problem with the importation of airline food, which is apparently now making its way commercially into the pigswill industry? Will he look into that matter because, apparently, it could be a source of further infection?
Mr. Brown: My understanding is that the food from airlines should not make its way into pigswill because there is a special regime for airline foodstuffs. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to give me chapter and verse of the allegation, I will have it looked at very quickly indeed.
I am sorry that there is foot and mouth disease in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I hope that he will pass on my sorrow and regret to his constituent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that we get on top of the problem as quickly as we can. That is why I have come to the House today to announce these measures, and I know that I have the support of the House in seeing them through.
Mr. Michael Howard: What does the Minister say to my constituents, Ian and Katrin Thompson of Crust Cottage, Snargate in Romney Marsh, whose applications for a licence to move their lambing ewes were twice lost by his Department? Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, who were already at their wits' end, had to fill in the same forms for the same animals on three different occasions. As Mrs. Thompson says in her letter, a copy of which I forwarded to the Minister yesterday,
"the consequences of foot and mouth are dire, but necessary; the consequences of bureaucratic bungling are not much less, but are so very unnecessary. Why, why, why?"
Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is describing licensing arrangements for which the local authority is responsible, or those for which the Ministry is responsible, but, whichever it is, I shall have the constituency case drawn to the attention of the appropriate officials and get an explanation. I cannot give him an explanation today because I am not familiar with the individual case.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister will be aware of the concerns raised by veterinary surgeons in Hampshire about the inadequacy of disinfection procedures and, especially, the guidance for using them. In particular, the manufacturers of the disinfectant, Virkon, which is approved by MAFF, recommend a dilution ratio of 1:100, yet apparently MAFF's guidelines recommend a ratio of

1223
1:1,300—a difference of thirteen times. Clearly, there is a huge problem, so will the Minister give some clear guidance to farmers and vets on what to do?
Mr. Brown: In all this, I am acting on professional advice. I will have the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises looked at by the veterinary authorities. If there is an anomaly, I will ensure that it is corrected, but, in any event. I will write to him with the answer to the points he makes.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Following the very distressing news that, since 11 am yesterday, there is an outbreak in Cheshire, two miles from my family home in the southern part of my constituency. I have received numerous representations from farmers and all those involved in the rural community. Of course that raises the spectre and the deep fears of the 1967 outbreak, which affected the Cheshire plains so devastatingly. My constituents are desperate to know that the vets will be given the autonomy and authority to carry pistols and to shoot animals on clinical suspicion, as proved to be successful in 1967. They want to be able to bury the animals immediately, where clay lining can be found for the pits. Often clay occurs naturally near the farmhouses in the area. There are many mounds of buried animals from 1967 behind the farm houses, but no farmer in Cheshire has ever caught anything as a result of that successful interment in 1967.
Furthermore, there are many rumours and reports of vented lorries and of tarpaulins flying off the so-called sealed wagons that travel to the Widnes rendering plant along the main arterial routes in my constituency, so many farms are obviously within the airborne spread risk areas. Although I do not have the evidence and, therefore, cannot raise the matter with the Minister directly, which is how he responded previously, there are serious concerns. So, if he could urge the police to man those routes to ensure that that risk is stopped, my constituents would be given more reassurance.
If a state of emergency is necessary, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to be shy in discussing it with the Prime Minister so that the necessary powers can be taken if needed. I recognise that that would be dire in terms of the political firmament, but if it is necessary to help control the spread of the disease, I urge him to consider it carefully.
Mr. Brown: I have all the powers necessary to control the disease, and the Government will do whatever is necessary to bear down on it. That is what I am doing. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be anxious about road movement and, therefore, the possibility of airborne disease from the lorries. The chances of that are as close to zero as anything can be.
Hon. Members should remember that the incubation period of the disease is a fortnight on average. Of course the disease is a biological phenomenon, so there may be some movement in the profile, but it cannot possibly be windborne from the lorries; it is far more likely to come from Welshpool market. The vets have the authority to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is precisely the route that has been taken with 80 per cent. of all the animals
1224
killed so far. We do not wait for laboratory tests; the vets can issue the instruction on clinical diagnoses—in other words, on first sight.
Dr. Julian Lewis: At the outset of the crisis, the Minister expressed his concern that even the time required for him to participate in debates in the House might damage his ability and that of his fellow Ministers and officials to look after the crisis as best they could. Given that that was his view then, can he put his hand on his heart and say to the House that his ability and that of other Ministers and officials would not be damaged much more severely if we were to proceed with a general election while such a crisis is raging? Or does he agree with me that any Government who went ahead with a general election under these circumstances, when they have a year of their time left to run, would fulfil the worst fears of the electorate—that the convenience of politicians comes before the interests of their constituents?
Mr. Brown: Let me say this to the farming community: while I am the Minister, I will work night and day to get the disease extinguished. That is my responsibility and public duty, and I shall fulfil it to the very best of my ability. The use of my time in the early days of the outbreak, when a response had to be devised and veterinary officials relied upon my support in government, was extremely important. That was the only point I was making. I do not begrudge coming to the House or begrudge the dialogue between us here. The testing of the Government's policies in a constructive atmosphere is the right way for a parliamentary democracy to work.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Cheshire was devastated in 1967 by foot and mouth. We now have one outbreak on the Shropshire border, but the rest of the county is still clean and we want to keep it that way. May I register again my strongest objections and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on behalf of farmers in the east of the county about the movement of dead stock to the processing plant at Widnes? Those farmers are not convinced that the decontamination of vehicles is foolproof. I hope that the Minister will understand their concerns.
May I also express the view that rapid reaction is essential, which is probably why we went a little wrong at the beginning? I welcome the fact that vets can now shoot animals as soon as they diagnose the clinical signs of the disease and that there will be on-farm burial when that is appropriate.
Mr. Brown: There is nothing new in the veterinary authorities' ability to order livestock for destruction once they have examined them and identified there and then the clinical signs of the disease. The word of the vet is enough; we do not have to wait for the test results to come through if a vet identifies the clinical signs. I repeat that in 80 per cent. of the cases in which animals have been destroyed that is what has happened.
On the question of vehicles, the hon. Lady's constituents have my wholehearted sympathy. I am not going to take any risks with the spread of the disease. Indeed, right from the beginning, we have clamped down on movements. The risk comes not from the movement of dead animals in lorries, but from the movement of live animals from infected to uninfected herds. The incubation

1225
period for the disease is a fortnight, so the events that caused the infectivity on the Shropshire border must have taken place some time ago. We have caught it; we have isolated it; and I want to do what I can to work with the hon. Lady to keep her constituents' land and that of their friends and neighbours disease free.
Mr. Owen Paterson: It was a clear recommendation of the 1968 report on the 1967 outbreak that burial was preferable to burning as a means of disposing of carcases. In Cheshire, north Shropshire and the Maelor, 25 JCBs are working full time. The Minister has said that he will use the Army for logistical support, but will he consider using its machinery and personnel immediately to implement a burial policy?
Mr. Brown: All the points that the hon. Gentleman perfectly properly raises are under consideration. We have been using contractors to carry out the destruction work so far, and we have used burning. There are a range of reasons why, in the circumstances that we have faced so far, we have not adopted a burial strategy, but it is an option that we could use. If we require the support of the armed forces to help with the physical work as well as the logistical work with which they are already helping, that option will be available to me. I will have no hesitation in using it if I am told it is necessary, and nor will the Ministry of Defence have any hesitation in providing its support.
Sir Robert Smith: Given the price collapses facing the sector, is the Minister any nearer making a decision on introducing a private storage scheme?
Mr. Brown: I am considering that option. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) suggested it for the pig sector, but it is clearly an issue for the sheep sector, too. It is not the preferred route that is being recommended to me by officials, but I am keeping everything carefully under review, including the impact on markets.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This may be the last in the long succession of questions that the Minister has answered, and I think that he has dealt with the House in a very sympathetic manner. He will have heard my question to the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will be able to deal with that matter.
Another issue relates to my constituent, Mr. Tom Fudge, of Neighbrook farm, Aston Magna near Moretonin-Marsh, who sent a load of sheep to be slaughtered this week. They made only 20p per kilogram compared to a price of 34p per kilogram before the foot and mouth outbreak. It appears that some abattoirs and supermarkets may be engaged in some form of price cutting to farmers, which is totally wrong when the price of meat in the shops is higher than it was before the outbreak. Will the Minister make representations to the slaughter industry and the supermarkets that they should give British farmers a fair price during the outbreak? Will he also guarantee that the compensation to British farmers will be based on the pre-outbreak price? If they were paid at the price of 20p per kilogram, that would be exploitation by the Ministry.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's point about the rates that the Government pay when we purchase animals for destruction is a fair one. I will write to him setting out the average prices that are being paid. As he knows, each case can be contested and there is an arbitration procedure. I have urged the big retailers and others in the trade to behave responsibly and fairly throughout the supply chain. I have received a sympathetic and supportive response.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are particular problems in the sheep sector, because many lambs are bred for the continental market and do not meet the specifications of the main part of the United Kingdom market. They are not therefore a displacing product on the market and are not specifically bred for the main demand in the UK. Prices are depressed for market specification reasons and because supply is in excess of demand.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister has answered every hon. Member who wished to ask a question. The House would wish me to thank him for his patience.

Points of Order
2.57 pm
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago in my question to the Minister, I inadvertently indicated that some schools in my constituency had closed as a result of the outbreak. What I meant to say was that Wiltshire county council has considered whether to close the schools. However, as far as I am aware, none of them has been closed.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will have been noted.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to reiterate that I fully understand that the rural community wants to do everything necessary to assist farmers and others who rely on visitors to extinguish the disease?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you were absolutely right to thank the Minister for the time that re has given to the House, and we would like to thank you for ensuring that the exchanges were able to continue. They demonstrated Parliament at its best.
Sadly, I raise a point of order because I wonder whether you have received notification from the Secretary of State for Defence of his wish to come to the House to make a statement. I was telephoned by my local radio station last night about a £200 million investment, including £3 million for my constituency, for barracks accommodation for soldiers. I have received no information from the Secretary of State, so I approached his office this morning, but I have still not received any information. That is appalling.
1228
The Minister for the Armed Forces is in his place and I heard him on my local radio station this morning telling my constituents about the investment, but he has not had the courtesy to let me know about it so that I can tell my constituents what on earth is going on. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would deprecate the behaviour of Ministers in the MOD who—unlike the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has made such a great effort—have made no effort to keep the House informed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into an argument. All I can say is that I have had no approach from the Ministers that he has mentioned.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, it has been extremely good of you to give us so much time for questions.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman; praise from him is praise indeed.

BILL PRESENTED
  ADOPTION AND CHILDREN
  Mr. Secretary Milburn, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. John Hutton and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to restate and amend the law about adoption and amend the Children Act 1989: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 66].
ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT: 2001–02

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office
    Considered in relation to weapons of mass destruction, pursuant to Resolution [14 March]
    [Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Weapons of Mass Destruction, HC 407, and the Government's Response thereto, Cm 4884]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That resources, not exceeding £410,620,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £508,690,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
    3 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, which is based on the report on weapons of mass destruction published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in August 2000. I am pleased to say that it is a unanimous report. I am very grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for the dedication, diligence and teamwork that went into producing it.
    The inquiry was wide ranging, covering national missile defence, the major nuclear treaties, conventions on chemical and biological weapons and control regimes. We took evidence from academics and the Foreign Secretary, and received a vast amount of written evidence from a wide variety of sources. We visited the disarmament conference in Geneva, the United Nations in New York and our American counterparts in Washington, and we drew on the experience of our specialist advisers, to whom I pay tribute. We also had in mind the fact that the subject had previously been tackled by the Committee in the 1994–95 Session.
    The inquiry was timely, partly because of the plans for national missile defence, which were being considered by President Clinton. In addition, there were new Presidents in the Russian Federation and the United States and various review conferences were approaching, such as the conference on biological and toxin weapons this year and the non-proliferation treaty conference in 2005.
    Arms control is not in the headlines as much as it was during the cold war in the 1970s and 1980s—indeed, our visit to Geneva was extremely depressing, as the conference has not been able even to agree an agenda—yet the subject is of vital interest to the future of mankind. The threats are now of a different nature. The regional threats between India and Pakistan, the middle east—including Iran and Iraq—and North Korea are a concern. Most worrying is the new scale of threats from terrorists and other non-state parties. I think in particular of the 1995 sarin attack in Tokyo. We were all alarmed by the Foreign Office statement, which said:
    "100 kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill up to 3 million people."
    1230
    How should we respond to such new threats? The Committee believed that various methods might be effective, such as diplomatic persuasion, arms control, deterrence and other defensive measures. Unfortunately, the situation is not encouraging, in part because of the rejection by the United States Senate of the comprehensive test ban treaty, CTBT, the failure to start negotiations on the fissile material cut-off treaty, FMCT and the poor state of bilateral nuclear arms control efforts between the Russian Federation and the United States.
    It is not my task to summarise the whole report, which I commend to the House. Instead, I shall single out key recommendations. The Government should make renewed efforts to break the deadlock on the FMCT negotiations, which have yet to start in Geneva, and should urge the United States President to resubmit the CTBT to the Senate. They should use their position in the G8 and the European Union to accelerate progress in helping the Russian Government to dispose of their surplus nuclear materials.
    The key tests for the chemical weapons convention will be whether it can effectively tackle states and parties who are possibly cheating. We highlighted the delays in the implementation of the inspection regime and recommended that the Government urge the United States Government to reseind their power of presidential veto over challenge inspections. We noted that the biological and toxin weapons convention, which entered into force in 1975, did not include a verification process, which severely undermines its credibility. Again, the United States argued for the right to refuse intrusive inspections on grounds of commercial confidentiality. We urge the Government to impress on the United States that a strong verification procedure is a viable goal, and to exert maximum efforts to that end.
    Progress on the non-proliferation treaty was slightly more encouraging because of the 2000 review conference and the joint statement by the five nuclear weapons states in which they pledge an
    "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".
    We welcomed that, but it remains to be seen whether that declared aspiration will mean much in practice.
    Understandably, the greater part of the substantial press comment on our report related to national missile defence, on which President Clinton set out four criteria: assessments of the threat; the arms control and strategic environment; the cost; and the technical assessment. The Committee questioned whether national missile defence, as it was then called, was necessarily the most appropriate and effective response. We learned that the threat of rogue states—later to be called states of concern—was exaggerated and hyped. Some people claimed that there were commercial pressures; others referred to the failure of the United States to recognise the positive changes in, for example, the Korean peninsula.
    We learned that the NMD could be destabilising, in particular because of the threat to the anti-ballistic missile treaty and our relations with Russia and China, and of the danger of undermining arrangements that are based on mutually assured destruction. There were doubts about technical feasibility because of the failure of tests and questions such as whether the missiles could easily be countered by measures such as decoys. In addition, the temptation towards unilateralism might give the United States a false sense of security.

    1231
    The Committee asked whether the additional security that NMD offers outweighs the negative impact of its deployment on strategic arms control. We were aware that it poses acute dilemmas for the United Kingdom. To refuse a request by the United States for the use or upgrading of Fylingdales would have profound consequences for relations between this country and the United States. We therefore recommended that the Government articulate the strong concerns about NMD in the UK; that they encourage the United States to seek other ways in which to reduce the perceived threats; and that they impress on the United States that it cannot necessarily assume unqualified UK co-operation in the event of its unilaterally abrogating the ABM treaty.
    A number of significant changes have taken place since we published our report. I must emphasise that from now on I shall give personal views, based, I hope, on what the Committee would broadly wish me to say. I cannot give its opinions because it has not had the chance to reconsider the issues. There have been serious developments—especially with the advent of President Bush—that have implications for NMD. I still have profound doubts that it is the most appropriate and effective response to the clear threats that exist. It is preferable to address those by building strong international non-proliferation regimes by giving economic, political and military incentives to dissuade countries from developing missiles. However, the signals that we are receiving from the new Administration indicate that they are determined to go ahead. There appears to be strong consensus in the Administration and across parties in Congress. The Administration's position is, perhaps, indicated by the choice of Donald Rumsfeld, with his background, as Secretary of Defence.
    If that is so, we in the UK and Europe have two options: to protest or to engage in dialogue with the new Administration. We have to consider which will give us greater leverage. Simple criticism of the desire of the United States to defend itself against threats will be wholly counterproductive. The starting point is that the US is a key friend and ally of this country. It is of the utmost importance that our relationship should be a key priority and that it should be preserved. Nevertheless, friendship involves honest assessments and a willingness to point out the dangers. As a start, we must propose a joint threat assessment by our Government and that of the US relating to the ballistic missile threat from rogue states.
    There are a number of serious questions to be raised at this stage.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I intervene at this point only because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he is going beyond the debates that we had in the Select Committee. On threat assessment, does he agree that one of the major problems that we discovered in our discussions with American representatives is that although they have an extremely effective means of assessing the capability of rogue states to launch a pre-emptive strike on America, they have very little ability to evaluate their intent to do so? In that regard, does he agree that it is essential for us to have a rational, sane analysis of the threat, not the capability?
    Mr. Anderson: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, who made a distinguished contribution to the Committee.
    1232
    Such a distinction is of the utmost importance and might assist in the joint technical assessment by ourselves and the US that I suggested.
    The questions that I hope will provide a platform for the debate concern the uncertainties surrounding the form of national missile defence envisaged by the Bush Administration. Will it be on the same lines as that of the Clinton Administration? Will President Clinton's four criteria still apply? The Bush Administration have already dropped the word "national" and are emphasising, perhaps for marketing reasons, that the dangers posed by an unintended missile launch will have to be considered.
    The Bush Administration's review began in mid-February. The outcome is not yet known, but from early indications it may confidently be said that the President would prefer a more robust defence system than the one outlined by his predecessor, which could include sea and space-based components. If so, we need to examine those matters very carefully. Certainly a sea-based system would not be cheap; nor would it be quick. According to the Pentagon's most recent judgment, if the process were accelerated, an initial deployment could be made in the financial year 2011, but otherwise not before 2014, with possible full deployment in 2020. During those 19 or 20 years the international landscape could change dramatically. A sea-based system would be technologically very challenging.
    It has been suggested that there might be concentration on the boost phase. The desire for multiple opportunities to intercept attacking missiles is understandable, but defence experts have highlighted a key concern about the boost phase—the shortage of time available to make an informed decision. Such a system would depend on an instantaneous automatic reaction. The decision would, in effect, be made by computers rather than humans, and there would be the potential for serious accidents and misunderstandings to arise, with terrifying consequences.
    What should now be the UK's response? I recommend the International Security Information Service briefing published this month, called "National Missile Defence: The Role of RAF Fylingdales and Menwith Hill" by Dr. David Wright. The Committee emphasised some of the dilemmas that we in the UK would face in making a decision on NMD and Fylingdales as well as our traditional role as a perceived bridge between the United States and our partners in Europe. Of course, European countries have shown greater scepticism about the whole concept than have our Government. It would be unwise to make a firm decision about NMD until we have a clear outline of the new Administration's plans, so we should await the outcome of their review.
    What exactly would be expected of Fylingdales? It is likely that it would still have a key role unless the United States decided to rely entirely on a boost phase interception. Would Europe definitely be under the umbrella? Would Russia be included? There is, of course, still no proof that such a system would work. We remind ourselves that even the more limited Clinton project largely failed each of the tests, with only one test being a partial success. At the end of the day, the UK will have to weigh up the options and decide what is in our best interests. Will NMD increase our security or put us at greater risk?
    I also pose the basic question of what would be the impact of NMD on strategic stability, particularly if the new Bush Administration included extensive land and/or

    1233
    sea-based systems and if they were deployed without Russian or Chinese agreement, which would abrogate the ABM treaty. That has to be given the highest priority because it has potentially disastrous consequences. The Select Committee outlined its fears. Last week, China announced an 18 per cent. increase in defence spending in response to drastic changes in the world security situation, focusing particularly on Taiwan. I noticed that today's Financial Times contained a suggestion that even the Chinese Government may be moderating their position.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is making a most important point. The People's Republic of China is augmenting its defence spending at a time when there is no perceptible threat to it whatever. Will he speculate why China should be making that potentially aggressive increase in weapons of mass destruction? As China has not participated in the non-proliferation treaty or other treaties to limit the spread of such weapons, is that not a grave development, especially in view of the potential conflict over Taiwan?
    Mr. Anderson: It is a grave development partly because of a potential spill-over into theatre missile defence and the perceived effects on Taiwan and partly because of the Chinese criticism of the hegemony of the United States in what is now a single-superpower world. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the article in the Financial Times, which makes it clear that China may conceivably be moderating its position in the light of the forthcoming visit to the United States of a senior Chinese official.
    Russia is of course deeply concerned about some of the apparent attitudes in the United States Administration to the acutely sensitive issue of the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. There are two points to make about that. First, officials in the United States Administration have claimed that the ABM is ancient history. That is certainly not true. Although some claim that because the Soviet Union is no more, its treaty obligations no longer exist, the Russian Federation has, in international law, stepped into the shoes of and assumed the obligations of the old USSR. Secondly, last month, the American Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, said that he believed that Russian objections to NMD were "not really serious". That is a highly dangerous suggestion. The big question is whether the Russians are adopting an absolutist rejection of NMD or whether they are in a negotiating position. We must ask whether they are trying to gain access to American technology, which the US would be unwilling to give. What Colonel General Ivashov said on 12 March in relation to national missile defence is highly worrying.
    There is real danger of an escalating arms response, as we have seen with the Chinese response of a potential increase in intercontinental ballistic missiles. There is also danger to the whole system of arms control, which would unravel. The Financial Times stated last week:
    "Washington must think long and hard about the direct and the indirect consequences of its missile defence plans".
    The litmus test is surely whether the end result will be enhanced or increased instability.
    In my judgment, there is no topic in foreign policy of greater importance than weapons of mass destruction. I hope that our report will be seen as an important
    1234
    contribution to the public debate; it certainly received extensive and largely positive press coverage. The role of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to monitor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Where appropriate, we have been highly critical of it. In this area, however, the United Kingdom has a record of which to be proud. Mr. Dhanapala, the Under-Secretary General for disarmament affairs at the United Nations, said
    "Britain's leadership in the fields of disarmament and non-proliferation has been impressive indeed."
    Mr. Dhanapala commended the United Kingdom on leading by example.
    In this highly dangerous world, there is still no room for complacency, however. In 1962, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, the then Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said:
    "We were eyeball to eyeball and the other fellow just blinked".
    That is how close we were; we hope that we never get that close again. Whether we can avoid that will depend to a large extent on the decisions that we make now about how to control those deadly weapons of mass destruction. That is our responsibility at the start of the 21st century. The stakes are high. On behalf of the Committee, I look forward to hearing colleagues' views on this most vital of subjects.
    3.22 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The report is extremely good and comprehensive. There is little in it with which I disagree, save perhaps in relation to the assertion of the Foreign Affairs Committee that any question of the relaxation of sanctions against Iraq must be conditional on Saddam Hussein allowing the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission to have access to sites where weapons of mass destruction may be being manufactured. I shall come back to that in due course.
    I have two initial reservations about the report, the first of which relates to the opening paragraph of the elegant memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by Sir Michael Quinlan, a most sagacious and experienced commentator in these areas. He said that the use of the expression "weapons of mass destruction"
    "lumps together weapons that differ widely in key respects and so need markedly different policy handling."
    My second reservation, which has been freely acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is the fact that, since 25 July 2000, a great deal has changed. One may be critical of the fact that it has taken nine months to secure an opportunity to debate the report, but that may reflect the fact that the risk to the United Kingdom from weapons of mass destruction is probably rather lower than it has been at any time during the last 25 or 30 years, or even going back to 1945.
    The national missile defence debate has moved on, not least because of he change of Administration in Washington. I still believe that the current proposal is unwise and proceeds on a flawed assessment of threat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said a moment ago. The traditional definition of threat involves analysing capability and intention. It is reasonable to assume that there is a risk that capability will be acquired by certain states. However, even if it were, would those states use weapons of mass destruction in the certain knowledge that the likely response would be overwhelming and catastrophic?

    1235
    I observe that the "states of concern" under the Clinton Administration have become "rogue states" again. There is some importance in language of that kind. I freely confess that my view is half-developed, but it bears further examination. If one treats a state like a rogue state, it is more likely to behave like one. It is true that some regimes are intransigent, some cheat and some enter into agreements with no real intention of keeping them. However, we must recognise that improved intelligence gathering makes deception, at least in the nuclear arena, more difficult. Weapons tests and missile launches are now easily detected.
    I am concerned that describing states as rogue states and treating them as such means that political change is unlikely to be encouraged. Of the four so-called rogue states that bulk substantially in the minds of policy makers in the United States, with the exception of Iraq, the other three—North Korea, Iran and Libya—are all states in which there has been, or is, contemplation of political change. If they are lumped together in a single category and described in a deprecatory way, we may inhibit the very political change that would make safer our lives and those of people in those countries.
    Many people hoped that the election of a new Administration in the United States would create an opportunity to reinvigorate the multilateral processes that control the means and opportunities for the development, use and testing of weapons of mass destruction. To use a colloquialism, the jury is out on that However, there are signs that the new American Administration and Congress favour a unilateral approach to strategic issues. We all remember the Senate's failure to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. Taking that decision together with the apparent determination to press ahead with a system of ballistic missile defence, it is not too difficult to identify a trend.
    Mr. Richard Spring: With reference to the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making, it is worth pointing out that, on 3 February, Mr. Rumsfeld said:
    "let me be clear to our friends here in Europe: we will consult with you. The United States has no interest in deploying defences that would separate us from our friends and allies."
    Mr. Campbell: I was in Munich, and attended the conference at which Mr. Rumsfeld spoke. With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman may have taken that paragraph out of context. It was clear from the contribution of Mr. Rumsfeld and other Americans at the conference that the Administration are determined to proceed with national missile defence. There may be an acknowledgement of the need to consult, but if the consultation continues to reveal opposition there is no suggestion that effect will be given to that opposition.
    The comprehensive test ban treaty was signed on the understanding that it could be adequately verified and existing stockpiles safely maintained. I am one of those who believe that the outlawing of nuclear testing worldwide is vital. I believe, too, that a continuing United States refusal to ratify the treaty makes it easier for other countries to deny any responsibility to do so. I have in mind, in particular, the cases of India and Pakistan.
    It is inevitable in a debate such as this that one must focus on the United States as the last great military superpower. The United States shows an unwillingness to
    1236
    endorse the International Criminal Court, and a reticence to accept the ban on the deployment of anti-personnel land mines—a topic that was dealt with to some extent by the Committee in its report.
    I have always thought that there is a risk in unilateralism. I thought that there was a considerable risk in unilateralism throughout the debate about whether the United Kingdom should maintain its own nuclear deterrent. The unilateral approach can be seductive. Treaty negotiation and adherence to the terms of treaties can be a restraint on freedom of action; treaties are cumbersome and sometimes messy. The agreements that they embody are not always satisfactory, but if the major military superpower moves increasingly towards a unilateral approach to the matters under discussion, that will make the maintenance of a collective—a multilateral—regime to deal with those matters extremely difficult.
    One of the lessons learned from the cold war was that collective action is essential to success. In the new post-cold war environment, the best way to ensure security is by collective action through NATO, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union, and through arms agreements that are universally subscribed to. Just as unilateralism was rejected, by some of us at least, during the cold war, so it should be rejected now.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: Arms control agreements not only control proliferation, but ensure predictability. If predictability were a word to describe any hon. Member, it would certainly describe the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I can almost guess the question that he wants to put, but so that my curiosity may properly be satisfied, I shall give way to him.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He is right that my remarks on this subject are predictable, because, unlike his party, I consistently supported the British nuclear deterrent and NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence during the cold war. Will he explain why Liberal Democrats were in the forefront of the unilateral disarmament movement? I will be happy to quote the Liberal Democrats chapter and verse from the 1980s. Why, in October 1983, at the largest ever CND demonstration against the vital deployment of cruise missiles, was one of the star speakers on the platform the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), who went on to lead the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. Campbell: I was right, and I suppose I was wrong, as well. If we are to go back to 1983, those were the days when the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland was advocating the merits of something that came to be called the poll tax. One thing is certain. When it comes to defending the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) has put himself and his own life at risk on rather more occasions than many, many hon. Members who now see fit to criticise him.
    It is quite wrong to say that the Liberal party ever espoused the cause of unilateralism. There is no resolution of our party that ever did so. It is certainly true that, along

    1237
    with many others, there were people in the Liberal party drawn from the traditional nonconformist and Quaker tradition, which has always been part of our party, who said that as a matter of religious belief they did not consider that nuclear weapons ought to be maintained by the United Kingdom or that their use should ever be contemplated. A party that is wide enough to embrace people of such sincere religious conviction has nothing to answer for to the hon. Gentleman, who was, in his earlier existence, the witch-finder general of the old Conservative party, which perhaps explains his enthusiasm for these matters.
    Dr. Lewis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: I shall give way once more, as I may have my curiosity satisfied again.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I know that the record of his party is such that he is strongly tempted to rewrite it. It is an historical fact that at the crucial time about which he was speaking—the crucial period when decisions were taken whether to employ cruise missiles and to replace Polaris with Trident—his own party leader repeatedly and publicly called Trident a white elephant and said that it should not be deployed, and repeatedly said that cruise missiles were the missiles that we had to stop. That was his leader's and his party's position. It is astonishing and deplorable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot face up to that, but harks back to something like the council tax, about which we Conservatives admit we were wrong. Will he not admit that he, his leader and his party were wrong about unilateralism in the 1980s, for that is what they were?
    Mr. Campbell: This is a pretty arid discussion. The views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil are on record and he has defended them on many occasions. I do not think that anyone like him, who served his country with great bravery and put his own life at risk many times, has anything to answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East for.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: Not at the moment.
    With regard to my party, it is quite wrong to say that the Liberal party or the Liberal Democrats ever espoused a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is right to say that there were members of our party—indeed, there are still some—who, out of sincere religious conviction, believe that nuclear weapons should not be tolerated. That is something for them to be proud of. Our party is sufficiently wide to embrace that nonconformist and Quaker tradition from the 19th century and allow it to flourish in the 21st century, without feeling any embarrassment whatever as regards the hon. Member for New Forest, East.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one does not have to be a Quaker to be worried about any weapons that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is so enthusiastic about?
    Mr. Campbell: The Minister makes his point, and no doubt he will have an opportunity to expand on it in due course.
    The debate has echoes of the period immediately before the 1992 general election, when we had a debate about nuclear policy just about every Friday because the then Conservative Government were attempting to embarrass the Labour Opposition the question, which now seems less relevant than it was then, of whether Labour would build the fourth Trident submarine. We had such debates Friday after Friday. Not much light, but a certain amount of heat was generated. The important point—which is important as a response to the intervention and to my momentary trip down memory lane—is that nuclear weapons must be wilt in the present strategic context, not in the obsessive historical context to which some in the House seem determined to refer us back.
    I reject the suggestion that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is ancient history. I also reject the approach that declares that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is no longer in force. We must accept a determination on the part of the United States to proceed with NMD.
    It is important to remember that the treaty is capable of amendment. My view is that we cannot exclude the possibility that Mr. Putin, on behalf of the Russians, will seek—if I may use a colloquialism—to cut some kind of deal. It is not difficult to envisage the basis of some agreement between the United States and Russia that allowed for an amendment of the treaty in return, for example, to agreed reductions in the total number of strategic warheads held by both Russia and the United States; that relied on at least a reconsideration by the Senate of the comprehensive test ban treaty; and that included some additional funds replicating the Nunn-Lugar programme, in order to enable Russia to deal with the detritus of its nuclear weapons programme, some of which swings on anchors at Murmansk and some of which is to be found in decaying arsenals throughout Russia. Mr. Putin might argue, perhaps with more difficulty, that a bargain was possible if the expansion of NATO was inhibited. It is not impossible to understand such an arrangement.
    The article in the Financial Times argued that China's position of outright opposition may be changing. It is not difficult to envisage that country, although not a signatory to the treaty, endeavouring to reach some accommodation with the United States, perhaps to drive a harder bargain on trade, economic advantage or, indeed, on Taiwan. We must therefore accept the determination of the Administration to proceed and the possible willingness of the two principal protagonists to reach some agreement.
    The development of effective missile defence is measured in decade rather than years. The land-based system cannot be deployed until 2007 at the earliest, and the sea-based system cannot be deployed until 2011, long after the United States constitution allows Mr. Bush to continue to occupy the White House.
    History shows that impregnable defences are illusory. Strong defensive systems encourage the proliferation of offensive systems or the development of the means to

    1239
    circumvent defence. I do not believe that 21st century technology, any more than the technology that gave us the Maginot line, makes that fundamental military truth redundant.
    On Iraq, the Select Committee concludes:
    "for so long as Iraq denies UNMOVIC at access there can be no progress towards the suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions."
    It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats have argued for some time for lifting non-military sanctions against Iraq. We accept that Saddam Hussein's regime must be contained and the maintenance of the credible threat of military action is part of that containment. We also accept the need for sanctions on military and dual-use goods. However, we do not believe that non-military sanctions are justified any longer. They are a blunt weapon and they erode the consensus in Arab capitals. Colin Powell must have discovered that during his recent trip through the middle east. Non-military sanctions make Arab support for the containment policy difficult. However, re-introducing a weapons inspection regime is imperative.
    Mr. Richard Butler is often mentioned in the context of sanctions against Iraq. I recommend his recent book, "Saddam Defiant", to anyone who has an interest in the matter. After making the case for inspection, he deals with sanctions. On page 55, he states:
    "it is clear that their impact has been on ordinary Iraqi people. The members of the Iraqi power structure have been scarcely affected, either in terms of the quality of their lives as individuals or in terms of their retention of control over the economy, the military, and the nation."
    On page 60, he states:
    "So, over the long haul, sanctions have proven a relatively ineffective weapon against Saddam and his flouting of international law, and they've provided a propaganda opportunity he hasn't hesitated to milk."
    I therefore disagree with the Select Committee's conclusion that the current regime of sanctions should remain in place.
    Mr. Wilson: Do the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats oppose a sanctions regime that is directed against Iraq's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Campbell: Not at all. I have been at pains to explain that the policy on Iraq must be containment supported by the credible threat of military action, and that sanctions should be directed against military or dual-use equipment. However, non-military sanctions are no longer justified. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), in his new capacity as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has already spent time in the middle east, taking account of opinion on those matters. I am sure that he recognises that considerable reservations about the current sanctions regime exist there.
    Is Saddam still a threat? Of course he is. As Richard Butler acknowledges, he has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in the years since the UN inspection team was forced to leave the country. He has certainly developed biological weapons, and recent evidence from German intelligence sources suggests that he has the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in three years. That underlines the threat that he poses and the overwhelming requirement to maintain an effective policy
    1240
    of containment. My policy would attract more support than the current arrangements, which cause anxieties about the broad-band, untargeted and relatively ineffective non-military sanctions.
    The right hon. Member for Swansea, East, the Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to biological weapons. He pointed out that efforts have been under way in Geneva since 1995 to establish a protocol that would allow for verification provisions in the chemical weapons convention. Negotiators are supposed to complete their work in time for the next review of the convention at the end of the year. As recently as 19 February, the chairman of the negotiators warned that little time remained to reach the compromises necessary for a successful conclusion and a verification regime.
    The United Kingdom is one of the three depository states for the convention. It is fair to say that we have an exemplary record in trying to achieve an effective protocol. It is imperative that the British Government use all their political influence to try to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations on the convention. Doubtless the Minister will be able to give the House some assessment of the likelihood of success.
    Some people oppose a verification regime because they are anxious to prevent secrets in commercially lucrative biotechnology from becoming more widely available. However, the need for a verification regime for the most easily carried and concealed weapons of mass destruction is overwhelming.
    The chemical weapons convention came into force in 1997. Since then, more than 850 inspections in 44 countries on more than 4,000 sites have occurred. The current budget for the technical secretariat for the chemical weapons convention is approximately $66 million. It has made a positive and successful start, but some ambiguity exists about a so-called "challenge inspection", when one state can call for the immediate inspection of a site in another state's territory. That procedure has not been tested, and there are doubts about whether the effectiveness of the convention can be assessed properly until that happens.
    Any verification regime that is adopted for biological weapons will almost certainly be based on the chemical weapons convention regime. We must ensure that it avoids the ambiguity about the challenge inspection process. Several states—North Korea, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Libya—have not signed the chemical weapons convention. We must use all our political influence on at least some of those states to persuade them to become part of the non-proliferation regime.
    Although some individuals take a different view, it is the common policy of all parties that the United Kingdom should maintain a nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future and that it should be based on the two principles of minimum deterrence and weapons of last resort.
    It is worth while reminding ourselves occasionally of just how far the United Kingdom has proceeded in nuclear disarmament. We did not encourage or have any part in any programme for the modernisation of short-range weapons—the "Follow On To Lance" programme, as it was been described. However, it must be said that Baroness Thatcher was a pretty enthusiastic supporter of that suggestion, at least in the first instance.
    We have abandoned nuclear depth charges and we have decommissioned free-fall nuclear bombs. Intermediate nuclear weapons—Cruise and Pershing, to which

    1241
    reference has been made—have gone from the UK. We have abandoned the proposal for a tactical air-to-surface missile, which would have had a nuclear warhead. All that has happened over the past 10 or 12 years. If, in the preceeding 10 or 12 years, those changes had been offered as a possible programme of nuclear disarmament for the UK, it would have been thought optimistic, to say the least. The number of nuclear warheads under this Government has been reduced to about 200, approximating to the number on the Polaris system that has been replaced.
    That is all well and good, but we have obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There is no question but that there were some difficulties in the review conference about the renewal of the treaty. One important step that allowed for renewal of the NPT was the fact that all five of the declared nuclear powers signed up in very robust language to a commitment leading ultimately to the elimination of nuclear weapons. I am not so naive as to think that that will happen over a very short time, but that commitment was important for the NPT. Its importance lies in a continuing obligation on the part of the five declared nuclear states, which are of course the five permanent members of the Security Council.
    The United Kingdom has a great opportunity to lead the charge to implement that obligation. It is based on article 6 of the treaty, but it was reinfused and re-emphasised in the declaration that all five states made in New York last year. There is a substantial political opportunity for the UK, which this Government ought to take. I doubt very much that in the lifetimes of any of us we can eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet, but we can certainly go a long way towards making the planet a very much safer place for our children and grandchildren by a gradual decline in the extent to which states regard nuclear weapons as essential to their security.
    3.52 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I want to refer to a couple of recommendations in the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I am a member of the Committee and happily signed the report. There is mention, as the Minister knows, of the proliferation of small arms. The use of small arms brings about much terror and repression in many parts of the world. I am referring to page 9 of the Government's response to the recommendation. I welcome their response because, among other things, it states:
    "the Committee will wish to be aware that the UK has nominated Sir Michael Weston, our former Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, as a candidate to chair the 2001 UN Conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons."
    I should like the Minister to comment on that candidacy. My research may be poor, but were we successful in recommending Sir Michael Weston for that position?
    We need to examine other measures to curb the proliferation of small arms—the phrase used in the report. We need to look again at the European Union's code of conduct on arms exports, which is mentioned in the report that was published this week by the Quadripartite Committee—comprising the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees—entitled "Strategic Export Controls: Annual
    1242
    Report for 1999 and Parliamentary Prior Scrutiny". It recommends greater transparency in the code of conduct. I have long been a critic of the code because I think that I am right in saying that it is entirely voluntary and that no sanctions can be imposed by the EU on member states that ignore it.
    The Government should take the report very seriously. It recommends:
    "in all future bilateral discussions with applicant countries, the Government makes a specific point of pressing the need to conform to the EU Code of Conduct."
    I refer to that report because it impinges directly on the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I am a member of the Quadripartite Committee as well. Concern is also voiced in the Foreign Affairs Committee report about the proliferation of small arms. Applicant countries need to have it spelled out to them very clearly that they must conform to the code of conduct. That of course also means that the 15 member states must conform to it. I should like the code to be strengthened.
    I listened closely to what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) had to say on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I welcome his generous tribute to those who have a principled objection to the British nuclear deterrent. I happen to be one of those who have never supported the British nuclear deterrent. I say that in the full knowledge that a goodly number of my constituents work across the water at the Clyde submarine base at Faslane and Coulport. They know my views on the issue.
    The five nuclear weapons states cannot expect other nations that, unfortunately, are acquiring the capacity to build nuclear weapons to listen to their warnings about the dangers of proliferation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made some mention of that. Might not other nations say, "Put your own houses in order", given that the five have a massive amount of nuclear weaponry?
    Nuclear submarines are a common sight on the lower Clyde and the firth of Clyde, and I have long argued that there should be a tough code of conduct to keep them well away from fishing vessels. I remind the Minister in that context of the sad sinking of the fishing vessel Antares. Skipper Jamie Russell, whom I knew, and his three crew members died when a nuclear submarine sailed straight into their demersal gear. None of the four men had a chance of escaping their terrible fate.
    The code of conduct that has been introduced is working well. I am honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, and have not had any recent complaints about infringements of the code by submarines. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that it is under regular review and that there are discussions with members of the Clyde Fishermens Association and others who fish in those traditional waters. I know that he and his officials would disagree with me, but I think that submarines should always be on the surface when steaming through traditional fishing grounds.
    A principled abhorrence of British nuclear weapons was clearly shown by the people, including the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who gathered at Faslane a few weeks ago to express their hostility to our nuclear fleet. Many ordinary, decent people joined in that event, but their presence was lost sight of because of the conduct of those two sun-tanned socialists, Tommy Sheridan MSP

    1243
    and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). Accusations were levelled at those two protesters over their theatrical behaviour—both were arrested on that day. I could not join the demonstration, but I assure the Minister that I would not have been arrested by the Strathclyde police. In fairness to those two, they have long held the view that our nuclear deterrent should be done away with.
    If ever Her Majesty's Government chose to decommission those vessels, measures would have to be taken to provide alternative employment for my constituents and others who have long worked at the base. I know that the matter is not the Minister's responsibility, but I totally oppose the privatisation—that is what it is—of the essential repair and maintenance activities that that first-class work force have undertaken for many years. The Ministry of Defence should think again. Its officials and Ministers seem to believe that it is axiomatic that private management is always superior to that in the public sector. The Government should seriously consider the joint trade union response to the proposals for that partial privatisation.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife mentioned the so-called national missile defence system. We all know that there is not a cat in hell's chance of the Bush Administration deploying such a system in their term of office. My right hon. Friend argued that more eloquently than me. It will be many years before it can be deployed.
    I was keen for the report to recommend that the Government must take account of people's deep-seated concerns about the United Kingdom's involvement in the so-called national missile defence system. I have great sympathy with the reservations voiced by our European friends on this matter. When the report talks about our special relationship with the United States, it puts the term in inverted commas. I happen to think that this country and many others are client states of the American superpower. There is concern about such developments, which violate certain articles of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We must take those serious concerns on board.
    I believe that we have produced a reasonable report covering matters from small arms to the national missile defence system. I welcome some of the Government's responses to it, but they must do more on the European Union's code of conduct. It must be transparent, and there must be sanctions. The applicant countries must be told that the issue is important for many people throughout the world, and that they must conform to the code of conduct.
    In contradistinction to what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, I would like our deterrent to be done away with. One of the witnesses, an Australian professor, told the Committee, "You British are pouring money down a rat hole"—a typically Australian observation, if I may say so, as I told him at the time. However, he was voicing a genuine truth, and I would like our deterrent to be whittled down. That report and the one published this week deal with many other issues that the Government should take very seriously.
    4.5 pm
    Sir John Stanley: Like other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, I shall speak mainly about national missile defence—but before doing so, I shall make some observations about the wider international arms control scene, which is an essential backcloth to responsible decisions on NMD.
    At the outset of the Committee's inquiry, I asked the experts a question that I have asked over many years: did they judge that the international community was winning or losing the battle to establish an effective system of verifiable and enforceable arms control worldwide that covers weapons of mass destruction? The answers that we received were, as always, mixed.
    There were the relative optimists, who could point to the fact that in recent years we have managed to conclude the comprehensive test ban treaty; that since the end of the cold war we have brought about a major reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the two big nuclear powers, Russia and the United States; that we have concluded the chemical weapons convention; that the various nonproliferation regimes have been strengthened; and that we have made some progress, at least procedurally, and albeit at a snail's pace, towards the critically important verification regime under the biological weapons convention, which is so urgently needed, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) rightly said.
    If those are the plus points on the more optimistic side of the scale, there are equally formidable points on the pessimistic side. Some countries have signed and ratified the important arms control conventions, but some potentially dangerous countries have not done so. Some potentially dangerous countries have signed up to certain treaties, but there are reasonable and possibly strong grounds for doubting whether they will comply with their provisions.
    Moreover, proliferation of nuclear materials, of components for nuclear weapons, and of guidance systems and delivery systems, is widely reported, and supported evidentially. Scientists and technicians are lured away, often for understandable financial reasons, to work in countries where they are well paid for their skills and expertise in weapons of mass destruction.
    The number of nuclear weapons states has continued to expand slowly but remorselessly—most conspicuously, more recently, in the Indian sub-continent.
    Finally, I suppose, there is the age-old truth about arms control—that arms are not dangerous, only the people who possess them. Today, there is a small minority of people—as there has been through the ages, and will always be—who act outside the normal boundaries of morality, compassion and humanity. Such people are prepared to cause loss of life, possibly on a prodigious scale.
    When I weigh the optimistic factors against the pessimistic ones, I regret to say that I conclude that we are losing the battle to create a worldwide system of enforceable arms control for weapons of mass destruction. That is the sobering background to the question of national missile defence.
    I have no problem with the concept of NMD. It is a purely defensive system, and any country is entitled to safeguard its national integrity with defensive weapons. The system represents no offensive threat to other states.

    1245
    I will have no difficulty, either, if the United States Government decide to spend what will no doubt be billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money on the research and development stage of NMD. I am deeply relieved that the taxpayers of this country, and of my constituency, will not have to spend that money, but if the elected American Government decide to spend their taxpayers' money in that way, that is a matter for them.
    Beyond the research and development phase, however, lies the question of deployment, which involves the wider international community. It certainly involves Britain, given the existence of the Fylingdales radar facility, and our membership of the UN Security Council. If a US Government wished to deploy land-based interceptors in locations other than those allowed under the anti-ballistic missile treaty—that is, around their national capital, or existing domestic intercontinental ballistic missile fixed-silo sites—either they would have to achieve an agreed renegotiation of that treaty, or they would have to abrogate it unilaterally.
    I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that an agreed renegotiation of the ABM treaty between the US and Russia is well within the bounds of possibility. The Russian Government would no doubt exact a legitimate price, but an agreed renegotiation is certainly possible. The US and Russia are the only parties to the ABM treaty; if they could achieve an agreed renegotiation, the integrity of the treaty and of international arms control agreements would be safeguarded.
    However, the story would be very different if a US Administration went down the path of unilateral abrogation. I earnestly hope that no future US Administration will feel obliged to go down that route. The fragility of the international arms control environment means that if countries around the world saw that the most powerful country in the world, with the largest defence capability, was willing unilaterally to abrogate international arms control agreements that it had signed, they would inevitably wonder why they should not do likewise if such agreements became inconvenient for them. There would then be a serious risk that the already all too fragile structure of existing international arms control agreements would unravel.
    I hope that during the research and development period, the US will take all possible steps to explain the defence and security rationale behind the NMD programme much more fully than has so far been the case. There are fundamental questions to which I have seen no very credible answer, and three in particular are in the forefront of my mind. I hope that the US Administration will answer them.
    First, which are the so-called rogue states that the US Administration regard as a threat sufficient to oblige them to erect the NMD shield? It is not enough to answer that question by trotting out the quartet of rogues gallery states that have been presented to Congress and the wider world—North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya. The postulation that one of those countries might launch an ICBM attack on the continental United States raises the question of why it would do so when the US Administration has a wholly invulnerable and massive retaliatory nuclear capability.
    1246
    The people responsible for launching an ICBM strike against one or more American cities could not but be aware that in doing so, they would be sentencing themselves to literal nuclear incineration, probably within a matter of minutes. Would the heads of the four states that have been trotted out as rogues be willing to sentence themselves to nuclear incineration? I am wholly unpersuaded that they would.
    We read that North Korea's leader, Chairman Kim Jong II, enjoys a very comfortable and possibly slightly hedonistic life style, which is in marked contrast to the abject misery to which he has sentenced virtually all the rest of his people. He is currently engaged in a welcome thawing of relations between the two Koreas, as a result of which rail communications across the Korean peninsula and the 38th parallel are being opened up. Nothing that I know of him suggests that he would be remotely interested in sentencing himself and his regime to instantaneous nuclear obliteration.
    Then there is Saddam Hussein. We would all agree that, of all the leaders with significant military power at their disposal, he is one of the nastiest pieces of work around, if not the nastiest. However, like other very nasty pieces of work, he combines a capacity for extreme nastiness with an almost paranoid concern for self-preservation. Thousands of people have died as a consequence of Saddam Hussein's determination to preserve himself. That determination is hardly the characteristic of a man who would sentence himself and his Administration to nuclear incineration at the hands of a retaliatory US strike.
    At the moment, I do not find it remotely credible that the regimes in Iran or Libya would contemplate for a moment subjecting themselves to the certainty of an American retaliatory second strike. Therefore, we need a much clearer, more credible explanation: which are the countries with an ICBM capability against which NMD is seen to be a key and necessary defence?
    The second question that I hope that our American friends will explain much more fully to us is why they believe that, of the three options that a possessor of weapons of mass destruction has to inflict many millions of casualties on the United States, an intercontinental ballistic missile would be the one chosen. That option is far and away the most expensive. Perhaps the most critical point of all is that it is easier to determine the source of an ICBM strike than the source of other strikes, so it is easier to target retaliatory action after an ICBM strike than after an attack with either a chemical or a biological weapon.
    The only thesis on which NMD can be based is that there could be a rogue state leader who had taken it upon himself to try to kill millions of Americans—but even if that were true, it seems to me that he would use not an intercontinental ballistic missile, but possibly a chemical weapon. As has already been mentioned, we had an ugly real-life example of that in 1995: the sarin attack in the Japanese underground system, which resulted in 12 people losing their lives and approximately 5,000 people being made ill, with various degrees of severity. A chemical weapon attack is a possible option, but chemical weapons used on any scale are bulky. Far and away the most likely means of assaulting the continental United States with a weapon of mass destruction is a biological weapon.

    1247
    As has been said, in our report we specifically drew attention to the Foreign Office paper that was placed in the Library on 4 February 1998, in which the Foreign Office, rightly, declassified information that had been held, classified, within Government circles for years. It announced in non-classified form its assessment that
    "One hundred kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill up to three million people."
    It is the danger from biological weapons that should be exercising the minds of the defence and presidential leadership in the United States, and indeed around the world, given the devastating consequences of small quantities of those materials and the serious risk that the perpetrators of such an appalling crime might go undetected. They would almost certainly be extraordinarily difficult to trace. That is my second question to the United States. The whole foundation of national missile defence is the supposition that some rogue state seeking to destroy millions of Americans will use ballistic missiles, rather than a chemical or biological weapon.
    That brings me to my final question to our American friends. Let us take the scenario on which the whole of NMD is based: out there, a rogue state leadership is willing to initiate an assault with a weapon of mass destruction on the American continent. Let us take the second assumption: it has decided, for whatever reason, to do that with an intercontinental ballistic missile. Why do our American friends believe that in such circumstances the President of the United States will not take action well before any ICBM is launched? Putting it the other way round, why do they believe that the President of the day will wait in the Oval Office until an ICBM from a rogue state, which they will clearly be aware of—they will have seen it under construction and during flight testing, and they will have seen the launch pads—is launched, hopefully to be intercepted by NMD?
    There is no possibility of a President of the United States and the commander of the United States armed forces in such circumstances waiting for the launch of any ICBM attack. Even now the American President has at his disposal a means of destroying the ICBM on the launch site, or well before it even gets to the point where it is ready to be launched. Like the British Prime Minister, the President has the capacity to use conventionally armed cruise missiles, whose pinpoint accuracy has been strikingly demonstrated in the Kosovo war.
    Those of us who have been to the Republic of Yugoslavia recently have seen for ourselves how American cruise missiles could be targeted successfully at the slim bridges over the Danube in Novi Sad, dropping those bridges into the river. I will always carry with me one of the most striking images of the extraordinary accuracy of the American cruise missile technology. In Belgrade, the main secret intelligence building, which, accidentally or possibly by design, was sited cheek by jowl with a maternity hospital—that is, within 50 m of it—was taken out by a cruise missile, which left the hospital untouched.
    An American President with the capability to put a cruise missile right on to the launch pad of any installation that he believed might result in an ICBM attack on the United States would use that pre-emptive strike capability. The Americans have used pre-emptive strikes before. As the House will recall, they did so in the mid-1980s. F111s with conventional weapons attacked Tripoli and Benghazi
    1248
    to make a pre-emptive strike against Colonel Gaddafi and to stop his state terrorism, which we had seen throughout Europe: the TWA airline attack and the Achille Lauro liner hijack.
    The F111 attack was intended to stop Libyan state terrorism in its tracks. Indeed, there was no repetition of such actions. For that reason, the United States President would use the weapon of a pre-emptive strike. He would be entirely justified in doing so, rather than allow an ICBM to be launched against the continent of the United States.
    Those are my three questions about national missile defence. I hope that, if the current American Administration—who, I am sure, wish to carry with them as far as they possibly can both the NATO alliance and the wider world community—move strongly into the research and development phase of national missile defence, they will come forward with much more coherent and much more credible answers to the type of questions that I have asked, and that I know other hon. Members will be asking in the course of this debate.
    In my view, there is no greater policy priority for the world's international leadership than to reverse what I believe is a worrying downward trend in adherence to international arms control measures concerning weapons of mass destruction. There is no greater priority than to halt that downward trend and to reverse it. The long-term future of millions of people on this planet depends on putting in place in relation to those weapons, which can destroy millions of people, an effective worldwide system of international agreements that can be monitored and policed.
    4.31 pm
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I commend the speech made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), in which he expressed very clearly many of the concerns that are shared by most Committee members about the current rationale for national missile defence.
    One of the lessons that I took from the Committee's visit to Washington was the extreme importance of the current network of international arms control treaties, and the enormous results that those treaties have achieved. Not unnaturally, our Committee tended to concentrate on the failures of arms control. However, it is very important to start by acknowledging the immense achievements of those treaties. I believe that they have contributed to making the world much safer today than it was decades ago.
    Those achievements include, of course, the START 2 treaty, which committed the United States and Russia to continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals, and the unilateral action that the French Government and our Government have taken to reduce our nuclear arsenals. Therefore, four of the five nuclear powers are actively unilaterally or bilaterally reducing their nuclear arsenals. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, one of the outcomes of the 2000 nuclear non-proliferation treaty review was that all five nuclear weapons states made a commitment to work towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Although, unfortunately, they did not set themselves a target date by which that was to be achieved, at least they all committed themselves to moving towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    1249
    It is still a concern that there are three unacknowledged nuclear states—India, Pakistan and Israel. It is difficult for the international community to find a way of bringing them into the international arms control framework. It would not be acceptable to acknowledge them as nuclear weapon states and add them to the existing five, because by so doing we would clearly be encouraging other states to move towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Conversely, as it is not even officially acknowledged—at least in the case of Israel—that they have nuclear weapons, we do not have to face up to the implications of their having nuclear weapons in regions where there is active and open conflict and therefore extreme danger that those nuclear weapons might be used.
    It is precisely because the international framework of arms control treaties has achieved and delivered real gains for world peace that the threat posed to those treaties from the United States plans for national missile defence is so extremely concerning. As has been mentioned, the original push for national missile defence came from the Rumsfeld commission. I believe that, at that time, he was Senator Rumsfeld; now, however, he is of course the American Secretary of Defence.
    The prime error in the commission's work was that it used a different method of threat assessment from that which had been used previously. The commission did not attempt to assess the intent of a missile-owning state to attack another state—to assess whether there was a rationale to attack—but simply examined the state's missile capability, drew a circle around the state and said, "Everything within that circle is at risk." If that approach had been followed when assessing American nuclear weapons, for example, one could say that the United Kingdom is "under threat" from American nuclear weapons. That exposes the fallacy in the Rumsfeld commission's argument.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Surely a serious analyst would examine the international relations track record of the countries that have acquired a nuclear capability and conclude that they were politically unpredictable as they do not have societal control systems to make quite sure that their leadership does not become aberrant and a threat to neighbouring states and the world order. Surely it is because of such a judgment that Mr. Donald Rumsfeld and his commission reached the prudent conclusions that they did.
    Dr. Starkey: There is no indication that the commission assessed intent at all.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Surely it has to be a fact that one judges a state by its military capabilities, in the knowledge that its intentions may vary with alterations in political regime. That is the point: capabilities can be built up over time and maintained, whereas there can be very sudden, abrupt and fundamentally crucial changes in political leadership that no one can foresee.
    Dr. Starkey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making my argument for me. In a proper risk assessment, one considers both the possession of weapons and intent. I do not think that he and I are arguing. I am saying that there
    1250
    is no evidence that the Rumsfeld commission considered intent at all. That is why the risk assessment that it made differed so markedly from any risk assessment made by any previous American Administration.
    The commission did not consider intent and, additionally, simply extrapolated forwards. It considered current weapons possession, decided what it thought those states might do, and said that America itself might be under threat, when it is not.
    The Rumsfeld commission also introduced the bizarre concept—the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) may not feel that it is bizarre—of a rogue state. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, at some point in the previous American presidency, the concept of a rogue state had changed to "a state of concern". Under the current presidency, however, the concept has changed back to that of a rogue state.
    Rogue states are in the eye of the beholder. One could list many criteria for defining a rogue state that could be used by some states to label as rogue states others that we regard as allies. The criteria include being unpredictable, intending to take action outside national law, and believing that national self-interest justifies action regardless of the framework of international law.
    The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood will know that there are countries that believe that the NATO action in Kosovo, which we supported, was outside international law. Although I do not agree with that assessment, some states genuinely question whether our action in Kosovo complied with international law. Inasmuch as they believe that we contravened international law, they may reasonably feel that they could view us as a rogue state. Such definitions, therefore, are distinctly unhelpful. Indeed, they say much more about the people who decide on them than about the states that are labelled as rogue states. In any case, as many other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, rogue states are not believed to provide the same degree of threat by other countries as they are by the United States.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling pointed out that North Korea is now behaving slightly more acceptably in engaging in dialogue with South Korea. North Korea has agreed a moratorium on further testing of its ballistic missiles. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not believe that there is any significant threat at present from North Korea, which is starting to behave slightly less like a rogue state. The trend in North Korea, in foreign policy terms, is taking a rather more benign direction than has been the case in the past.
    We heard evidence during our investigations that Iran has a perfectly legitimate right to feel under threat. It is right next door to Iraq, with which it previously engaged in an extraordinary war, resulting in the death of thousands of Iranian and, indeed, Iraqi citizens. Iran is also already within range of the Jericho 2 missiles that the Israeli Government have deployed. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Iran may wish to take steps to defend itself. Iran's acquisition of defensive capacity, given the threats that it faces, should not be taken as evidence that it wishes to move into aggressive mode. The Shahab 3 missile that Iran is developing has Cyprus and Turkey within its range. However, neither of those states feels particularly threatened, because there is no evidence of any intent by Iran to attack them.

    1251
    Iran certainly poses no threat whatever to the United States. The only way the United States has been able to suggest otherwise is by extrapolating the threat forward and saying that Iran intends, in the fulness of time, to acquire missiles that would reach American territory.
    Libya is assessed as posing no particular threat in this regard. Iraq is clearly a threat, but experience has demonstrated that America and the other allies, including ourselves, are able to deal with Iraq if necessary. Again, there is no need to cite the development of national missile defence to provide defence against Iraq.
    The threat of the so-called rogue states is simply not credible. That raises very disturbing questions for other nations about the USA's intent in moving forward with national missile defence. Given that there is no credible threat from rogue states—but even if there were, there are much simpler ways of dealing with it—what exactly is the USA's intention in developing national missile defence? The suspicion must be that this is merely a precursor for something much bigger and that it is not simply an entirely defensive system. Making America entirely invulnerable, as far as America and some of its allies are concerned, allows it to act in a way that is distinctly unhelpful to other states and might be aggressive. That perception of the real reason for national missile defence, given that the cited reason is not credible, worries other states, including Russia and China, and has caused enormous concern among many people in Britain and other European Union member states.
    The perception in Russia and China is important, not just because it is not in our interests for them to feel insecure, as insecure states do foolish things, but because the effect on China would be to encourage it to increase its nuclear arsenal. That has a knock-on effect on other undeclared nuclear states, notably India and Pakistan. An upward movement in nuclear movements would be extremely unhelpful.
    The fear is that America is moving towards an ability to impose its will on other countries, regardless of international law and international norms. That general feeling of insecurity is not in British interests because it makes us less secure.
    Since the report was produced, there has been a change of presidency in the United States and a change in the apparent nature of its plans. The new Bush proposals are not yet, I understand, completely formulated. However, there are suggestions that instead of having land-based facilities, America might move to sea -based or air-based facilities. There are also suggestions that British participation, through use of the Fylingdales listening post, although desirable might not be essential, and that America might move to attacking missiles in the boost phase rather than as at present.
    As has been pointed out, even the original Clinton proposals could not have been deployed until beyond 2007. The new proposals could not possibly be implemented until beyond 2011—and, in all probability, way beyond that—so we are not talking about deployment of this facility in the foreseeable future. However, the US commitment to the concept—its preparation for it and investment of huge resources in it—is itself destabilising. It causes a climate of fear among other nations, which believe that America will simply impose its will. It causes all the compensatory reactions in Russia, China and other nations that help to unravel the arms control treaties.
    1252
    I believe it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has attempted to communicate to President Bush the deep concerns that are felt throughout the world about the American proposals. My right hon. Friend is trying to get across the importance of the Americans discussing their proposals with Russia, their allies and China, as well as the extreme importance of the Americans not unilaterally breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
    I am concerned about the wider implications of the American Administration's commitment to national missile defence and the way in which that commitment betrays a certain approach to foreign policy objectives. In the first instance, it betrays a unilateral approach. Of course every country must be concerned about its own security. All Governments have a duty to ensure the security of their citizens. However, we are all interdependent. Frankly, it is not within the power even of the American Government to protect their citizens at home and abroad by themselves. America is dependent—to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the circumstances—on other Governments helping them to protect their citizens, particularly when their citizens are abroad.
    Every Government must take account of the effect of their actions on other Governments—especially their allies—and of the effect that their actions may have on the behaviour of other Governments, which may contribute to the greater insecurity of the citizens of the countries concerned. The current approach of the United States Government, particularly in regard to national missile defence, demonstrates the worrying view that they and they alone can secure the safety of their citizens—that they need not bother about the concerns their allies may express, and indeed that they need not bother about the concerns of Russia or China.
    When we were in the United States, we heard advisers to Republican senators waxing lyrical about NMD. They demonstrated a disturbing mindset, seeming to be entirely unaware of the perceptions, fears and views of those outside the United States and, indeed, seeming to regard them as unimportant and irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was the safety of American citizens and the view of the American Government; everyone else would just have to put up with it. That is a worrying approach.
    Another worrying factor is the almost exclusive reliance on technical solutions. The world is a worrying place, containing many regimes that are deeply unpleasant, but I do not think that many regimes are irrational. They may do things that we do not like, but there is a certain rationality behind most of them. Some regimes are certainly amoral, but that is not the same as being irrational.
    As I have said, the world is a worrying place, but I do not believe that the problems can be solved simply by that reliance on technical solutions—and NMD is essentially a technical fix. It constitutes a refusal to face up to the complexity of foreign relations, and to the fact that conflicts generally have a cause rather than coming from out of the ether. It does not accept that the best way to start making the world a safer place is to concentrate on existing conflicts, and—through a combination of diplomacy and other pressures—to try to resolve them by removing the reasons for them.
    The middle east provides an example. The United States is deeply concerned about Iraq and Iran, as we are. That concern is based largely on the extraordinarily poor

    1253
    relations between Iran and America that have existed in the past, and, obviously, on the hostage-taking episode in the United States embassy in Tehran. Those relations are becoming more positive, but the United States is nevertheless concerned about the two nations.
    The policy that the United States is currently pursuing in the middle east, however, makes a threat to the United States more likely. The bombing of Iraq, and the United States' unconditional support for Israel, help to stoke up conflict in the area and make it more likely that the US will be at risk from threats from this country and its population.
    I was disturbed to hear on television just before this debate that the United States was about to vote, in the United Nations, against sending UN observers to the west bank in an attempt to protect Palestinian civilians from the excessive violence that is being visited on them by Israeli armed forces. We are talking of unconditional support for a state that is the only nuclear weapons state in the middle east, a state that is much more heavily armed than any other in the middle east, a state that is illegally occupying territory—as it has done for 30 years—and a state that is pursuing a policy of assassination of individuals within that occupied territory, as has been admitted by the Israeli armed forces.
    That unconditional support by the Americans, and the failure to try to defuse conflict in an even-handed fashion, simply stokes up the problem in the middle east, and increases the threat that has prompted the Americans to propose NMD to protect themselves. Their reliance on a technological fix, and their ignorance of the need to pursue a diplomatic solution, worry me greatly, and I think we should not associate ourselves closely with such an approach. We should also bear in mind the fact that the general conflict in the middle east increases Iran's insecurity, and makes it even more likely that it will step up its programme of missile defence.
    NMD is a dangerous diversion from dealing with those conflicts and it threatens to derail the treaties to control weapons of mass destruction. We need to make sure that the United States Government are well aware of the serious concerns in this country about the line that they are taking, and that they start to move away from their proposals for NMD and back towards serious measures, in concert with their allies, to reduce conflict across the world and to get the reduction of weapons of mass destruction and the treaties that govern it back on track. That will contribute most to the security of British and American citizens.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. John Wilkinson: This is a serious subject. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on their contributions to the report. Their speeches were serious, as the subject deserves, as was that of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). In athletics he was a sprinter, but when it comes to a speech in the House of Commons he is definitely a marathon man—except that once it has been delivered he becomes a sprinter again, so soon is he out of the Chamber.
    1254
    Let me take up the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, who said that insecure states do foolish things. The first duty of any Government is to defend their citizens. In a highly technological age, weapons of mass destruction become more precise and potentially more destructive, thereby more of a threat if used unscrupulously. I see no moral reason—she brought ethics into her speech—why a responsible democracy such as the United States should not use its technical capabilities to enhance the security of its citizens.
    Everybody understands that conflict resolution is a prior imperative of Governments. Everyone comprehends, for example, that year after year the United States of America has sought a diplomatic solution to the problems of the near east and the Arab-Israeli dispute. However, many disputes are so intractable and deep seated that the potential for regional and, indeed, wider conflict exists. Those include the near east, the Kashmir dispute, the dispute over Taiwan, and the rivalry between Iran and Iraq. A number of those potential flash points are areas where there is a build-up of weapons and weapons of mass destruction, so the need for diplomacy and peaceful solutions in great.
    Nevertheless, there are limits to diplomacy, peaceful persuasion and rationality in international affairs. It is imperative that wise democracies prepare for the worst. Leaderships change, as I tried to show in my exchange with the hon. Lady, political intentions alter and unscrupulous, aggressive dictators can all too rapidly come to power. The examples are legion. The most recent in our history was only 19 years ago when the Falkland Islands were invaded. No one would have dreamt that Argentina could launch an invasion, but it did. We were surprised and many people lost their lives. Those unpleasant surprises in international affairs occur all too frequently. It is thus reasonable and wise policy for the United States to develop systems of defence against the most fearsome of all weapons of mass destruction—ballistic missiles.
    When we examine what happened in the Gulf war, we realise that it was fortunate that the USA could deploy the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system, notionally in antimissile mode, against the Scuds launched by Iraq. Had the USA not been able to do that, I suspect that Israeli public opinion would not have tolerated the Scud raids launched against Tel Aviv and other Israeli targets. The provocation of the Israeli people would have been such that they would have demanded the armed intervention of their Government, and then a serious regional crisis—following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait—would have become a regional conflict of dangerous proportions.
    That example alone demonstrates the importance of the reassuring effect of an appropriate defensive system. In retrospect, we all know that the Patriots were not effective and that, by and large, the Scuds were not intercepted. Nevertheless, the importance of a modicum of defence was understood.
    The USA is embarked on the development of missile defence systems, and nothing we can say in this place will deflect it from that objective, especially as it was put to the American people as the programme of the newly elected Republican President, Mr. Bush. The US Secretary of Defence—Mr. Rumsfeld—Colin Powell and the President himself are determined to achieve a

    1255
    successful development programme, which within a few years will enable the USA to determine whether missile defence is feasible and cost-effective.
    In essence, there are three types of system: point defence systems—theatre missile defence; wider systems—national missile defence; and, ultimately, space based systems of global significance, which could bring the international community a measure of security against surprise missile attack that we have never enjoyed. Even setting up the rudimentary architecture is an advance. For example, if the allies had to launch a taskforce to intervene to bring peace to an especially troublesome part of the world, such as the middle or the near east, it would be reassuring to know that theatre missile defence was available against ballistic missile attack—whether from nuclear, chemical or biological, or even conventional weapons. It would be wise policy to make available such a capability.
    National missile defence is inherently a matter for the United States, but of course some of the facilities, such as the early warning installation at Fylingdales in Yorkshire, are overseas. It would be foolish of the United Kingdom to fail to assist the US in upgrading that facility, inasmuch as we would gain from it. At the very least, as US allies, we should have improved early warning of missile launches that could risk our people. If only in national self-interest, we would be foolish not to assist the Americans in NMD.
    Of course, there are international ramifications, but missile defence threatens no one. I am delighted that major powers such as the United States—at present, solely the United States—are working towards an enhancement of defensive capabilities that will reduce the risk to their population, and are no longer keen on increasing their offensive armoury of weapons of mass destruction. That is a great advance.
    As other hon. Members have said, the arms control process has already diminished the inventories of offensive weapons systems available to the principal powers. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said that four out of five main nuclear states had reduced their nuclear armouries: quite so, but one such state remains, and she was not critical of it, any more than was the right hon. Member for Swansea, East. It is China.
    The People's Republic of China has been inexorably increasing its defence spending in recent years, allied to which its economic potential is constantly growing. It receives aid, assistance and technical transfers from the western powers and considerable military assistance from the Russian Federation. Analysts would do well constantly to study the People's Republic of China, which is seeking to enhance its sea power in the Pacific and is prepared to sabre-rattle against Taiwan and to embark on military exercises in the neighbouring regions. Its space programme is closely allied to its missile capability and its potential capacity to launch weapons of mass destruction. In those circumstances, the United States is wise to pursue the research programme on which it is embarked. I hope that the research programme will lead to some successful conclusions.
    Dr. Starkey: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that national missile defence is intended to protect the United States against China?
    Mr. Wilkinson: Indeed so; otherwise, why would the early-warning installations in Alaska be the first to be upgraded? It is conceivable that not just Russia, but China or North Korea, or any of those Pacific states, could be a threat to the western United States of America. That is absolutely true, and no one can argue against that fact.
    The policy makers in the United States place more emphasis on the risk of rogue states, because we all assume that they are so inherently unstable that an aggressive dictator is more likely to come to power in them. They have had a succession of unpleasant totalitarian regimes of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West. Nevertheless, it would be extremely imprudent not to take note of the steady increase in China's military power and its potential.
    There is also the potential for nuclear blackmail. A nuclear power of whatever size does not have to launch a nuclear weapon to be in a better position to secure its interests. Since we acquired our own nuclear weapons in 1945, we have secured our interests, to some extent, by having a nuclear deterrent. We have kept that nuclear deterrent. As other hon. Members have said, that is now to a much greater degree a non-partisan doctrine across the Floor of the House, but I recall the days when it was a matter of intense political debate.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) knows better than I do, there was an intense struggle to prevent the modernisation of NATO's nuclear arsenal in the early 1980s, but we were resolute. The former head of the East German secret service, Marcus Wolf, has just produced a fascinating book that merits careful reading by those who study such matters. We warned that the peace movement was being manipulated by the KGB, the East German secret service, and so on. We also warned about the degree of infiltration in West Germany.
    We recognised that the concerted efforts that were being made by the Warsaw pact to create division in the western alliance represented a serious threat, and we stood up to it. Furthermore, President Reagan's programme to try to establish a ballistic missile defence system and the work that General Abramson and others did in the 1980s was a contributory factor in the then Soviet Union's realisation that it could never beat the free world, led by the United States, in an international arms race.
    The Soviet Union realised that it was much wiser to move to a democratic system, to allow a process of self-determination in the constituent parts of the former Soviet Union and to reach an accommodation with neighbours. Mercifully, that has been a great step forward.
    Nevertheless, old habits die hard within the Russian Federation. The Chechen operation was a bloody undertaking. A Polish Member of Parliament, whom I know well because he sits with me on the Council of Europe's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography, went to Grozny. When he came back, he told me, "I have not seen such devastation in a western city since the devastation that we saw in Warsaw at the end of world war two." If the Russians are prepared to use military force against people whom they purport to be their own, who knows how they would react if their leadership changed? In those circumstances, is it not important to have not only an arms control regime in place, but a modicum of defence in case deterrence breaks down?

    1257
    I hope that the United States' western European allies will try to understand why the United States has to pursue its research efforts into ballistic missile defence. I hope, too, that the western Europeans do not divide themselves into EU sheep and non-EU goats. Our common security interests transcend the artificial division that exists on our continent between EU and non-EU members. Such a division is pernicious in the process of the European security and defence identity.
    Many central European countries that are crucial to the security of the continent have already joined NATO. They include the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Others aspire to join NATO and they are participating in Partnership for Peace. Their interest is in the preservation of their hard-won democracy and the rule of law, which they now value so much. They are entitled to be full members of the decision-making process over European security. They and the countries that have always been members of NATO—such as the Turks and the Norwegians, who had a frontier with the former Soviet Union, and the Icelanders—are all in it together.
    That is why I hope that the value of the Assembly of the Western European Union, on which I serve, will be fully appreciated. The treaty of Nice means that everything apart from article 5 of the Brussels treaty and the role of the armaments group will be transferred from the WEU, but that is no reason to give up the invaluable dialogue between interested and informed parliamentarians that exists in the WEU Assembly. We have produced countless reports. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who chairs the aerospace committee, produced a report on transatlantic co-operation on anti-missile defence and Mr. Schloten, a socialist who chairs the defence committee, has published one on nuclear armaments, which discusses the issues involved and the prospects for the common European defence and security policy.
    Those national parliamentarians have a dialogue with national Defence Ministers and may participate in the national defence committees. They vote funds for defence and influence Governments, and I hope that they will influence their Governments to ensure that the Europeans do not diverge from the United States on the question of missile defence. If the developments prove successful, I hope that the Americans will seek to achieve an agreement with the Russians to allow the deployment of proven systems and, as Mr. Putin has offered, will participate jointly in missile defence. Let us work on that offer as a token of his good intentions.
    If that could be achieved, the anti-nuclear missile umbrella that has been offered by the United States could protect not just the United States but our continent and could offer a degree of security to Russia as well. That is what is on offer. However, if we turn our back on the technology, we will be turning our back also on an enhancement of our defensive capabilities.
    5.14 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate the Committee on an outstanding report with whose conclusions I fully identify myself. I also congratulate it on reaching all-party unanimity, on its objectivity and on finding a consensual and rational
    1258
    process of discussion and dialogue on these vital issues. That is the proper approach, which is why we established the all-party parliamentary group on global security and non-proliferation. I thank the Committee for its favourable mention of two meetings that we organised.
    There is one underlying message of the report on which people of different attitudes in all countries could agree. At the end of the cold war, it was agreed by common consent that the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction had disappeared. It is now widely acknowledged that we have not grasped the opportunities of the past decade; as a result, it is recognised across the political spectrum, from the far right of the Republican party to the far left of the European parties, that there is a threat. Part of the great challenge in future decades will be to see whether we can reduce that threat in time.
    The report compliments Britain on its unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons and on its major contribution to multilateral moves—in particular its positive role in the nuclear non-proliferation review treaty 2000, on which the UN also complimented us. I fully concur with those comments.
    We should take seriously all perceived threats, including the threat from rogue states—however they are defined. In doing so, we need to consider the extent of the threat, what is the correct response to it and whether a wrong response could increase other threats that might be more dangerous.
    The report records a weight of expert evidence suggesting that the size and time scale of the threat has been hyped in the United States. The Committee believes that political and military industrial complex interests played a greater role than rational strategic analysis in pushing the conclusions that were reached in the US. It is interesting that the Ministry of Defence White Paper "The Future Strategic Context for Defence" seems to reflect, in paragraph 89, a similar estimate of the threat from rogue states. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred in his outstanding speech to the fact that, during the Committee's investigation, diplomatic developments, especially in North Korea, led the United States, at least temporarily, to talk instead about "states of concern".
    The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) also made outstanding contributions. As they said, the report explains that the United States should never underestimate the deterrent effect of its devastating retaliatory power.
    Like other hon. Members, I shall concentrate on missile defence, which is known variously as national missile defence, ballistic missile defence or missile defence. We must consider whether NMD is the wise response, because it threatens the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Some people say that that was only a bilateral treaty and that now, following the memorandum of understanding, it is a pluri-lateral treaty between the United States and some of the Soviet Union's successor countries. However, the Government's response to the report correctly says—as the Prime Minister has said since—that they value the stability afforded by the ABMT.

    1259
    The ABMT has a multilateral aspect because one thing that was agreed by all parties, including the United States, at the NNPT 2000 review conference was that the ABMT should be preserved and strengthened as
    "a cornerstone of strategic stability and a basis for further reductions in offensive weapons."
    If the treaty were to be abrogated, it would, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, be a devastating blow to arms control. Russia has said that it sees a connection between ABM and the SALT and START treaties. As NMD threatens limited nuclear arsenals, it might prove to be a deterrent not to rogue states but to multilateral disarmament. Indeed, it has been suggested by a prominent United States diplomat that NMD should perhaps stand for "no more disarmament".
    There would be tremendous pressure on Russia to increase or update its nuclear forces, and for China, which is already expanding its nuclear forces, there would undoubtedly be an impetus to expand further, with the danger of a knock-on effect on India, Pakistan and other countries. Russia and China might not be able to afford vast expansion, but there is a danger in destabilising major nuclear powers, partly because of the risk of increasing the export of nuclear and missile technology at a state or criminal level. Such exports might be not only to rogue states but to that far more dangerous group—terrorists—whose members cannot be deterred because they are more difficult to identify and locate and can convey weapons of mass destruction using a case or a lorry, rather than a ballistic missile.
    Missile defence could also encourage a gung-ho adventurism, in the belief that the United States or its allies were protected. That could be extremely dangerous in dealing with existing or potential nuclear weapons states. Missile defence could also increase the risk of catastrophic accident, in three ways in particular. The boost phase interceptor system will have particular dangers. The more invulnerable the United States believes it is, the greater the danger that countries that fear that they may be its rivals will feel vulnerable, and the greater the danger of hair-trigger alerts. The weaponisation of space will be extremely dangerous.
    It has been said that sea-based boost phase interceptors may be the form of missile defence that will be favoured by the Bush Administration. It is certainly easier to hit a target during boost phase: it is larger and slower, it is hot and it has no decoys. Dangerous debris may be returned to sender. However, if we have interceptor missiles around the world, close to nuclear weapons states, and with a boost phase that lasts less than five minutes, at what point after a suspected detection of a missile launch would a decision have to be taken to fire if another missile were to intercept it? We are talking about a matter of seconds, and the decision would be taken either by very junior officers—or possibly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East suggested, by computers.
    What would happen if a missile was launched at a nuclear weapons state and the situation was misinterpreted? We must remember that some advocates of the system, such as Richard Perle, are talking about having vessels patrolling not only off so-called rogue states but off major nuclear weapons states, in case of an unintentional launch, as they put it. What would happen if a missile was accidentally fired and misinterpretation of that act led to an uncontrolled situation?
    1260
    I strongly support the Select Committee's conclusion that it is not convinced that NMD is the appropriate response to proliferation, and back it in urging the Government to encourage the US to find other ways of reducing perceived threats.
    I disagree with the official Opposition's unconditional acceptance of missile defence without even knowing the terms on which it would proceed. I am disappointed by the way in which the Leader of the Opposition and certain other people who share his point of view have discussed this issue. They talk about whether people have or have not been, or are or are not, members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and to conjure up the 1980s. I am sorry, but the issue is far too serious for us to get involved in the cheap party political knockabout in which we engage on other topics in the run-up to elections.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous in giving way. However, surely he recognises that the issues debated in the 1980s were, if anything, more important than those on NMD that we are debating now? The outcome of the cold war depended on them. It is a matter of concern when people who were on the wrong side of the debate on 1980s issues try to falsify the record and do not show the slightest acknowledgement of the fact that, if their judgment was wrong in the past, it may be a little susceptible to error now.
    Mr. Savidge: That is typical of the Opposition, and underlines my point. This is not about debating personalities and history; it is about debating issues and the future. What matters is the strength of people's arguments, not whether one believes in the organisations to which individuals have or have not belonged. I could go in for guilt by association with various organisations on the political right or left. I am not interested in that; I am interested in debating the issues and arguments. We should concentrate on that and on arguing about the future. I may have different interpretations from others about who was right and who was wrong on certain issues in the past, but we should concentrate on genuine debate.
    Mr. Spring: Nobody thus far has introduced any party political points-apart from the hon. Gentleman himself.
    The whole basis of the cold war was massive retaliation. However, we are talking about defence. Henry Kissinger, the architect of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, now thinks that it lacks relevance. What he is now saying is pertinent and I hope that it helps the hon. Gentleman to understand our position. He says:
    "History teaches that weakness is provocative and, in a real sense, the absence of missile defence provokes others into seeking such weapons."
    Mr. Savidge: I am sorry, but when we talk glibly about missiles being defensive, we should always remember that—going right back to the days of castles, and irrespective of people are in armour or tanks—there has been a delicate balance in warfare. If someone has a lot of offensive power and also builds up defensive power, that can be seen as threatening. That can lead to problems.
    On the whole, hon. Members have been extremely sensible about personality issues today. I am simply expressing disappointment at the fact that when Government and Opposition Front Benchers have debated the issue in the past, some Members have treated it as a

    1261
    personality issue, which cheapens the debate. Opposition Front Benchers have genuine convictions on the issue—especially the shadow Defence Secretary, who is committed because he fears the asymmetric threat.
    I wish to caution against the Conservatives' position, which seems to be at variance with their traditional position. They seem to be moving away from a belief in deterrence and away from a professed belief in multilateral disarmament. If we speak about the 1980s, it should be remembered that in the 1980s the Conservative party opposed star wars 1 because it believed that that might undermine deterrence and multilateral disarmament.
    I compliment the shadow Defence Secretary on his honesty in saying that he wants to see the cover of missile defence extended to the United Kingdom, and in arguing that we should buy into it. He has heard the same thing from Republicans as I have. When they say that they would be happy for the missile defence umbrella to be extended to the United Kingdom, it is on the basis that we would be prepared to spend millions of pounds for that to happen.
    The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that he was glad that it was US taxpayers who were paying for missile defence, but he should realise that his own Defence spokesman said on "Today" just three weeks or so ago that he wanted British taxpayers to buy their way into it. I wonder how enthused British taxpayers would be by that idea, given that according to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Ministry of Defence, the threat is remote.
    What should the Government's attitude be? There will be voices, not just on the Tory Front Bench, urging us to accept that missile defence is inevitable. Some will say that that was the mandate on which Bush was elected, and that we must therefore accept it. I leave open the question of whether Mr. Bush was or was not elected; I assume that Florida's votes will be debated for many years to come.
    More sensibly, some people suggest that there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States, so missile defence is bound to happen. However, I believe that the position is more complex than that. When the Missile Defence Act went through, the Democrats accepted it on four conditions: that it could be proved to be financially reasonable; that it could be proved to be technically feasible; that there was a justifiable threat; and that it did not cause diplomatic damage. Senator Daschle, the Democrat leader in the Senate, said that he intends to push those four tests. It should be remembered that at present the Senate majority depends on the casting vote of the Vice-President and on the longevity of a certain number of elderly and infirm Senators.
    It has been said that the US Administration is determined—although the Canadian Prime Minister said that he found a degree of flexibility in the President's commitment or otherwise to missile defence. I do not know whether that is true, but views seem to be divided on how the US should pursue the matter. It worries me greatly that the division between, say, the Powells on the one hand and the Rumsfelds on the other seems to be moving in the direction of the Rumsfelds. I am extremely concerned about the Americans' attitude to North Korea.
    1262
    It is notable the South Korea is against national missile defence and is in favour of pushing ahead with diplomatic means of dealing with the North Korean threat.
    The question of whether the more hawkish or the more consensual people win out in the United States may be influenced by the attitude of other countries. Others would say that there is a special relationship, so we must do what the United States wants. However, that relationship has never involved absolute subservience. For example, Britain did not send people to fight in Vietnam. The special relationship survived, and probably many British people survived as a result. As I said, Britain did not support the original star wars proposal.
    I believe that there is fluidity in the United States, Russia and various other countries with regard to the issue. I concur with the Prime Minister, who said that the matter should be handled with care. We should take seriously the concerns of the United States, as the Prime Minister said, but, as the report suggests, we should try to persuade the United States to consider other ways of meeting the threats that it perceives.
    There should be genuine dialogue with Russia and China. Making the anti-ballistic missile treaty a pluri-lateral or a multilateral treaty should be considered. In the millennium report to the General Assembly of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, suggested that we should hold an international conference on nuclear dangers to which all countries, including non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, could be invited. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred to them. At such a conference, we could discuss threat assessment and enter into the deeper, careful, considered international dialogue that the Government proposed in their response to the report.
    Let us compare that offer with an imaginary offer. Let us suppose that we were offered a short-term fix: the United States would back the European strategic defence initiative, thus ending all dissension in NATO; the missile shield would be extended to us without our having to pay for it, and we would get extra jobs; the special relationship with the United States would be promoted; and Fylingdales and Menwith Hill would never be used because sea-based missiles would be employed instead. Technical difficulties would mean that we would not have to worry about the matter for decades, because it would take decades to work—if not to undermine arms control. Russia would thus be forced into an ABM deal.
    I am trying to conjure up the sort of seductive deal that Mephistopheles would offer Faust. The price would be our acceptance of national missile defence without further question or critical dialogue about its dangers. Would that be a truly Faustian pact? Perhaps not, because Faust was only asked to sell his soul, whereas we might be selling the future of every soul on the planet.
    We must bear in mind that, unless we can find effective ways in which to reduce the threats that we face, absolute disaster could ensue in decades or perhaps centuries. We therefore have an awesome responsibility. A major nuclear war could destroy much of human life. The environmental aftermath, such as nuclear winter, could endanger the remainder. Is that the way the world ends—

    1263
    with bangs followed by gradually decreasing whimpers? That would be a terrible betrayal of all past generations and an even greater betrayal of future generations. "Do not go gentle into that good night…
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.'
    5.38 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: There are two possible approaches to debating the great issues of defence and disarmament. One can theorise in a vacuum about the present, or try to learn the lessons of the past. If we do not try to do the latter, we condemn ourselves to making the same mistakes and paying the same price time and again.
    I am not alone in believing that it is important that the record of past debates should not be airbrushed or forgotten; the BBC agrees with me. Last year, when the so-called Greenham Common peace camp finally passed into oblivion, the BBC helpfully included a subsection on Greenham Common in the in-depth section of its website. Part of it was entitled, "Timeline: key points". It tracked every development, no matter how piffling, petty, detailed or irrelevant that marked the Greenham Common women's campaign up to December 1983, when, it rightly recorded, the women encircling the base held their last big demonstration. Then, something rather curious happened. The next entry was dated August 1989:
    "The first Cruise missile leaves Greenham Common".
    The implication was obvious. The women's demonstrations had resulted in the cruise missiles leaving.
    For those of us who were involved, professionally as I was or as volunteers, in opposing and undermining the movement for unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain, so epitomised by those wretched women, there was a curious omission in that jumping from December 1983 to August 1989. What had been left out? Only the fact that, in 1987, several years after any significant protest by the Greenham women had fizzled out, a multilateral deal was concluded—the intermediate nuclear forces deal; the zero-zero option deal—which had been on the table from the Americans since 1981, and the achievement of which had been delayed only until after it had become obvious to the Soviet Union that the campaign for one-sided nuclear disarmament had failed.
    The BBC, in its wisdom, had sought to airbrush out of existence the multilateral deal, which was the vindication of NATO's stance, and which led to the removal not only of nuclear weapons on this side of the then iron curtain, but of large numbers of SS20 nuclear missiles on the far side of the iron curtain. It chose to suggest instead that it had been a result of the unilateralist protests, which had somehow miraculously led to this happy outcome—the removal of cruise missiles—three years after the protests had finished.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the most fantastic misjudgment of global politics in the latter half of the 20th century was made by the party that is now in government, which embraced multilateral disarmament when the cold war had come to an end?
    Dr. Lewis: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, except I think that he meant to refer to unilateral disarmament, embraced during the cold war by the Labour party. He is absolutely right, and I shall be coming to that in a
    1264
    moment. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not have anything to be pleased about because their record in this matter is something of which many of them should be greatly ashamed.
    Dr. Starkey: I am attempting to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's exegesis, which clearly his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), failed to follow.
    I note that the hon. Gentleman is, as usual, wearing his gold pound sign. Is he suggesting that if, in the fullness of time, the British people, presented with a referendum on the issue, decided that we should go into the euro, that that would demonstrate that all his efforts were entirely nugatory and foolish and that he should attempt to airbrush them from his record? It is perfectly possible to hold views that are not held by the majority but are entirely honourable and for one to have absolutely no desire to airbrush them out of one's record.
    Dr. Lewis: I am happy to pay fulsome tribute—as I develop my argument, the hon. Lady will see this—to people who hold sincerely to the unilateralist views that they held at the time, and I have always done so. I shall not be drawn down the route of European defence or other European issues in that connection because I secured an Adjournment debate on those very subjects a little earlier this year. If the hon. Lady had been genuinely interested in those subjects, she could have attended that debate.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing characteristic courtesy in giving way. Might I point out to him that members of Scottish CND were delighted to see the departure of the American nuclear submarine fleet and the mother ship from Holy Loch on the firth of Clyde, but they do not claim that they were the principal decision makers in that departure?
    Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to hear that Scottish CND does not make that claim. The hon. Gentleman had an honest commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980s, when this issue was at the centre of everyone's attention, and still holds to it today, whereas other participants in that debate do not show anything like the same consistency.
    I was intrigued by the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). He said that he and the Liberals had not supported unilateralism. I shall read a few quotations.
    "Let us be clear: this country does not need cruise and NATO does not need cruise. Cruise is the front end of the whole anti-nuclear struggle. It is the weapon we have to stop."
    That was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) when he made his platform speech at CND's largest ever demonstration at the height of the crisis.
    "Britain's Trident deterrent is 'a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible'."
    That was the right hon. Member for Yeovil quoted in the Morning Star in July 1984 at the height of the battle.
    "I remain wholly opposed to nuclear weapons. I remain of the firm belief that Britain could afford to get rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow and would not suffer in consequence."
    That was the right hon. Gentleman quoted in the CND magazine Sanity in December 1985.

    1265
    "I agree with the Liberal Party, which is the only British political party that has always opposed a British nuclear deterrent."
    That was the right hon. Gentleman also quoted in Sanity in December 1985. Finally, this is what the right hon. Gentleman said on "Newsnight" on the eve of the 1992 general election:
    "I never took the view that this country did not need an independent deterrent."
    When I made those points to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, his response was to say that because his right hon. Friend had a distinguished service record it was not appropriate to criticise his past views about nuclear deterrence. Today, everyone accepts that the people who supported disarmament and appeasement between the wars made a terrible mistake. Despite their best and sincere intentions, that stance did not lead to peace, but encouraged aggression and brought on a war that might have been avoided.
    Many of those sincere people who advocated disarmament and appeasement had distinguished military records—even more distinguished than that of the former leader of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party. That did not mean that they were right about the issues then, any more than the answer given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman should insulate the former leader of his party from criticism of his party's position in the 1980s.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman clearly came prepared with those quotations; otherwise, he would not have been able to give them in such detail. In accordance with the conventions of the House, did he advise my right hon. Friend that he proposed to attack him personally?
    Dr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. I did not come prepared with those quotations. On the contrary, I left the Chamber for a short period during his speech to retrieve them from my desk, which is at the foot of the stairs leading from the Members Lobby.
    As a result of that, the rest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism is misplaced.
    However, the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife illustrates a feature of the debate. Criticism of the individual records of parties and their leaders on policy issues is construed as a personal attack, but there is nothing personal in such criticism. I am sure that the number of times that Baroness Thatcher is criticised in this House now, as she was criticised in absentia when she was Prime Minister, is substantial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has deployed a typical red herring.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Liberal party did not support unilateralism. I think when we look at the record of what he actually said, we will see that the wording was carefully chosen and that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Democrats did not support unilateralism. With that, there is no problem. From the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, there is only one snag—the Liberal Democrats did not exist before 1988. By that time, the argument about nuclear weapons, peace camps and cruise missiles had been resolved. Indeed, the intermediate nuclear forces treaty of 1987 had already been signed, vindicating the stance taken by NATO.
    1266
    It is frankly disingenuous to say that there is no blame to be attached to a party because it did not come into existence until after the key events had taken place. In fact, the blame that should be attached is to that party's predecessor organisation, which was most certainly unilateralist throughout the crisis.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman point to a resolution of the Liberal party that embraced the code of unilateralism to the extent of saying that the United Kingdom should rid itself of all nuclear weapons? That was what unilateralism was commonly regarded as meaning in the period that the hon. Gentleman has described. I challenge him to point to a resolution of the Liberal party that said that.
    Dr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard me state what the leader of the Liberal party publicly stated. Is he saying that the right hon. Member for Yeovil was wrong when he said that he agreed with the Liberal party, which he described as
    "the only British political party that has always opposed a British nuclear deterrent"?
    If so—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I ought to tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he intends to dwell rather lengthily on what another Member has said, he would be advised to give prior notice to the Member in question—in this case, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown). Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman has probably said enough on that subject.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I remind the House that I had no intention of raising the subject until it was falsely claimed that a political party that had been committed at a key time in this country's history to one-sided nuclear disarmament, had not been so committed.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can try to deal with this. I think that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) would probably wish to say, on reflection, that in his view a mistaken impression may have been given to the House, rather than a false one. I think that that is parliamentary good manners. However, if one hon. Member is persistently going to quote, as the hon. Gentleman is doing, what another Member has said, notice is usually advised. That is the case even if the hon. Member doing the quoting did not intend to do so at the beginning of the debate.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I fail to see how I could give notice about anything that I was going to say in a debate that I did not intend—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not test the patience of the Chair in a matter of this kind. I have given him considerable leeway, and I have tried to make it clear that he should not have introduced this matter into the debate if he was unable to give notice to the right hon. Member for Yeovil.
    Dr. Lewis: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was not me who introduced that matter: it was the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife.

    1267
    In the course of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, the Minister of State, made a facetious intervention to the effect that anyone should be worried about any weapons system that I support. I was a little surprised by that remark because, only on 28 February, after I and the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) had made speeches in a debate on Sierra Leone, he praised our "outstanding" contributions. I begin to wonder whether we on the Conservative Benches can expect, when we happen to support the Government because we genuinely agree with something that they are doing, to be regarded as making outstanding speeches, but to be subjected to unworthy criticisms of the sort that the Minister made in his intervention when we happen to disagree.
    I was therefore minded to look back at the Minister's stance at the relevant time. I was interested to see that, as late as February 1989, he said in Tribune that he had "spent a substantial segment" of his life
    "arguing the moral and political case against nuclear weapons".
    He lamented the fact, regarding it as a "tragedy", that "historic opportunities" to abandon British nuclear weapons had previously been "squandered", but disagreed with the view that
    "a Labour government without unilateralism is not worth having".
    In other words, he was reluctantly accepting that Labour's unilateralist policies would have to go if it were ever to get back to power.
    One has to wonder about the contrast between the attendance in a debate on this subject, which several hon. Members have said is vital to the future of the planet in 2001, and the likely attendance in the 1980s when the Chamber would have been filled with hon. Members arguing fiercely about whether to go down the peace through defence and deterrence route, or the peace through disarmament route. That is what those debates resolved themselves into time and again.
    There are two basic ways of looking at international politics: we can look at it either as a situation in which, as a result of mutual fear and suspicion, nations that would not otherwise be hostile to each other end up in an action and reaction cycle of rearmament, which culminates in war breaking out; or as something analogous to individuals threatening to fight, where the best way to keep the peace is to show that the person who is threatening to attack has no chance of doing so without massive and unacceptable retribution.
    Several hon. Members have referred to commitments involving the non-proliferation treaty. Article VI is often referred to and evidence that this country should be committed to the entire abolition of its nuclear defences. It commits the signatories
    "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date"
    —which has certainly been achieved—
    "and to nuclear disarmament, and to a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
    Nothing in the treaty states that the achievement of a nuclear-free world should be expected to arrive before the achievement of a conflict-free world. Listening to this debate, one might think that the Government, and Opposition Members other than Conservative Members, visualise a situation in which the problem is weapons themselves rather than the intentions of participants on the international stage.
    1268
    The Government's view has been slowly shifting. When they were still in opposition, they were very resistant to giving up the policy of Britain alone getting rid of its nuclear weapons. Consequently, they tried to adopt a type of halfway house. They tried to say that, rather than giving up the British nuclear deterrent for nothing in return, they would negotiate away that deterrent in return for nuclear weapons being given up by the then Warsaw pact. It was only under the most intense pressure that they finally gave a commitment in which they said that they would keep some nuclear weapons as long as other countries have nuclear weapons. I should like the Minister to tell us today whether the Government stand by that commitment. Is it still the Government's position that they will retain some British nuclear weapons as long as other countries have nuclear weapons that could threaten us? I hope that he will address that issue in his summation.
    The commitment that the Labour party made about that in its manifesto for the 1997 general election fell some way short of the commitment that it made in the manifesto on which it unsuccessfully fought the 1992 general election. However, although the Government say that we have reached the minimum capability necessary for nuclear deterrence, there seems to be some uncertainty about whether the Government would include nuclear weapons in arms reductions negotiations if other countries were prepared to reduce their nuclear weapons totals, but not to eliminate them. I want to be assured that we shall not be revisiting debates in the future that so many hon. Members in the Chamber do not seem happy to revisit now.
    Paragraph 124 of the Select Committee report states:
    "Britain as a nuclear weapon state, a permanent member of the Security Council, a leading member of NATO, and a member of the G8 and the EU has a key role and a key responsibility in trying to put all Weapons of Mass Destruction under international arms control regimes and in making progress towards their complete elimination. This must surely be one of the highest foreign policy priorities for the Government."
    On the very last page of the Government's response to the report, they deal with that conclusion in a single sentence, which states:
    "The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusion."
    Let us therefore spend a little time examining that conclusion, which states that all weapons of mass destruction should be placed under international arms control regimes. What exactly do the Committee and the Government have in mind by that? I do not see how anything short of a world government, or a United Nations that is vastly different from the organisation that we have known, could properly take over the nuclear deterrents of the countries that currently possess nuclear weapons.
    I am concerned that people who want the nuclear genie put back in the bottle fail to appreciate that the disinventing of nuclear weapons would be a thoroughly retrograde step. Does anybody seriously believe that more than 40 years of cold war—confrontation at a level of intensity that would undoubtedly have spilled over into something more active—could have successfully been concluded if it had not been for the mutual terror of the nuclear weapons held by the superpowers? We must not refuse to recognise what happened—a potential world war was averted because dictatorships knew that they dare not attack democracies on account of the retribution that

    1269
    would undoubtedly follow. The lessons of that must be absorbed, yet they are being denied by the very people who are now trying to rewrite history about their behaviour and that of their parties during that period.
    I want a simple answer to two simple questions. Do the Government believe that nuclear deterrence helps to keep the peace by persuading dictators not to attack democracies? If so, do they commit themselves not to negotiate away our nuclear weapons as long as any other country has them, and certainly not to agree with the conclusion of this report that all nuclear forces should be placed under some sort of international arms control regime? That was nonsense when it was first proposed at the end of the second world war, it was nonsense when it was revived as a result of various skewed disarmament initiatives periodically in the latter half of the 20th century, and it remains just as nonsensical today.
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who produced the report that we are debating along with the Government response to it.
    This debate takes place shortly after the death of a close friend, Peggy Westerway, who was a long-standing campaigner alongside me in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She would probably have been the first to identify herself as one of those "wretched women" to whom the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred. Peggy would have said that that "wretchedness" was an expression of the best part of what moves society forward, when people without particular power were driven not by wealth or influence but by their conscience to make a stand in favour of peacemongering and to oppose the predominant culture of cold warmongering that prevailed then.
    Peggy would also have been the first to point out where I should be starting from with the documents before us. The starting point would probably be not the Select Committee report but the Government's response to it. The Select Committee quite rightly expressed its concerns both for this country and internationally about the American proposals for national missile defence. The Government's response to that was, to me, quite confusing.
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office states in paragraph (7):
    "As the Prime Minister made clear on 24 July, the Government is strongly in favour of deeper, carefully considered international dialogue on this complex and difficult issue. The Government has worked hard to promote such dialogue both among NATO allies, and with Russia, China and others. We have of course articulated UK views in the course of such exchanges, and believe these views are well understood, not least in the US."
    Peggy would tell me, I suspect, that they are not best understood in the United Kingdom.
    It is important for the Minister to tell us what views the UK Government have expressed about the UK's position. Have we, for instance, simply told the Americans that they are mad—completely insane—to pursue the idea of NMD? Have we told them that it would tear the anti-ballistic missile treaty apart? Regardless of whether
    1270
    anyone—Henry Kissinger in particular—happens to believe that the treaty has passed its sell-by date, it currently exists.
    Have we told the Americans that their star wars programme would unleash another nuclear arms race? Have we told them that it would result in the militarisation of space? Probably most important of all, have we told them that Britain would be no part of that?
    A number of Members have said today that NMD would not work—that it would not work for a decade, or that in any event it would not work very well. Let me refer the Minister to an important point in the Select Committee report, which was recognised by the Government. Paragraph 41 says that representatives of the Acronym Institute
    "warned that nuclear warheads could be delivered, for example, on cargo ships, in delivery trucks that can go across borders and in packing cases."
    We also know, from current experience, that threats of massive disruption to developed and developing economies caused by disease are far more serious than the threats posed by missiles. We know what could easily be the consequence of the release of anthrax, and we now know just how devastating is the effect of foot and mouth disease in Britain and across Europe.
    It is entirely right for us to repeat the message conveyed to the Select Committee that NMD would not eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, because the nature of those weapons, and their delivery systems, are changing as we speak. The conventional notion of a grand intercontinental ballistic exchange that can be traded off, fended off or outforced is a military theology that has itself passed its sell-by date.
    Moreover, we should recognise that in going down that path, we engage in some risky processes ourselves. A number of Members have talked about rogue states, the need to identify the characteristics of such states, and what happens when people see themselves as having been branded as members of that group. I think it reasonable to assume that the phrase refers to states that do not honour the international treaties to which they have signed up—and, moreover, engage in actions that are internationally and militarily destabilising.
    The difficult question for the House to take on board is this: what if that definition applies to Britain itself? I want the House to consider two examples. One relates to the ABM treaty; the other relates to another treaty whose origins also lie in the cold war period.
    We have often said that the ABM treaty is really a treaty between America and Russia—that it is for them to sort out, and that we are on the sidelines. Following exchanges with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, however, the Select Committee recognises that Britain is at the very least a third party to the treaty. Part of it imposes the existing constraints on the role that RAF Fylingdales can play in international monitoring.
    Everyone has recognised that either the ABM treaty can be changed by Russia and America or it can be abrogated by either side, which would change the position of Fylingdales, whose use is tightly prescribed by the terms of that treaty. For us to be a party at this stage to discussions about changing its role puts us in breach of what the ABM treaty stands for. We should reflect carefully on whether we are acting within the strict terms of that treaty, if not within the moral presumptions that were entered into when we signed it.

    1271
    The treaty relating to the exploration of outer space had its origins in the cold war period. I know that a number of hon. Members were keen to revisit that period. In fact, some would appear to be keen to live in it. I draw the attention of the House to the important event that took place on 27 January 1967, when Britain became a signatory to the outer space treaty—a treaty that exists to this day. Its origins are extraordinarily important in the context of this debate on national missile defence.
    The outer space treaty was the second of the so-called non-armament treaties. Its concepts and some of its provisions were modelled on its predecessor, the Antarctic treaty. Like that treaty, it sought to prevent a new form of colonial competition and the damage that could be caused by self-seeking exploitation. Its origins probably date back to 1957, even before the Soviet Union launched its sputnik in October. By that time developments in rocketry had already led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects.
    Between 1957 and 1962–63 there was a series of proposals, mainly made by western powers, about ways in which we had to agree internationally to restrict the use of space for military purposes. In September 1960, when President Eisenhower addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations, he proposed that the principles of the Antarctic treaty should be applied to outer space and celestial bodies. Three years later, the General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution welcoming the Soviet and United States' statements and calling on all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction in outer space.
    There were further discussions about the details of that proposal, but the key consequence was that on 27 January 1967 the outer space treaty was produced in a form ready for signature. It was signed in Washington, Moscow and London. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the nature of that treaty, even before we get into discussions about the workability or acceptability of NMD.
    Article IV of the outer space treaty simply states:
    "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
    The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."
    We were one of the founding signatories to that treaty, yet a breach of it is precisely what NMD requires; it is precisely what the United States of America threatens to do—which, I am afraid, is precisely what Britain currently chooses to ignore. Because of that treaty, Peggy Westerway would mount a challenge on the grounds of morality and conscience.
    If the ABM treaty or the outer space treaty is abrogated, it really will not matter whether Russia and America came to an agreement to do that. It would still open up a whole new dimension within which an arms race—if not a nuclear arms race—would take place. We would have to bear the responsibility of being one of the parties that made that breach possible; it would take us into a dimension for which the world would never forgive us. That is why the real challenge in international leadership, which we must ask our Government to take on, is a series of commitments about the place that we will occupy on
    1272
    the international stage, where negotiations and discussions are taking place about whether we are willing even to entertain the current American star wars proposals.
    We should base our position on five fairly clear principles. It would be fantastic for Members of the House, and enormously welcomed by members of the public, if the Government made a commitment that we will not, in any circumstances, entertain the prospect of being seen as a rogue state by violating the existing treaties that we have signed.
    It would be important to make a commitment that we will hold no discussion whatever on extending the use of Fylingdales or including Menwith Hill, because that would violate our current obligations under the ABM treaty. It would break the constraints imposed by the treaty.
    It would be helpful if the Government said, openly and clearly, that NMD will not eliminate the threat from weapons of mass destruction. We need to occupy a different platform. I am in favour of Britain making a commitment to take a unilateral role as a peacemonger. We can do that in the context of multilateral treaties. It does not require the agreement of someone else to take that first moral step—it requires us to have the courage to do so.
    It is for Britain to lead the debate—to say that if the world is looking for stability and security in the uncertain century that we have entered, we shall have to find them through non-military means. If Britain does not want to be perceived as part of the problem, and as part of the threat posed by rogue states that sign treaties that they have no intention of honouring, we should not act as a rogue state.
    Peggy would tell me that that is what she expected those of us who are currently active in the peace movement to say in the debate about the new peace movement that is needed for the 21st century. However, she would also say that she expected Parliament to do more than we do at present, by making a non-military, non-nuclear presumption that there are world solutions to poverty, instability and famine, rather than by adopting the notion of simply opening up space as a dimension within which we would be complicit in the perpetration of warmongering.
    6.24 pm
    Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a well-rounded report that gets to the heart of this important issue. The report left no stone unturned; it looked comprehensively into the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and at the ways in which that threat could be countered; it looked into the major treaties and conventions, controls and agreements; and it looked into some new initiatives that are meant to counter the threat.
    Hon. Members will inevitably have different views on aspects of the report. I recognise the refreshing honesty of the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), and the genuinely held views of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge).

    1273
    No one can doubt the thoroughness with which the Select Committee approached these complex subjects. I therefore warmly applaud its work and especially that of its distinguished Chairman, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
    The speeches this afternoon have been universally thoughtful and reflect original thinking. We agree with many of the Committee's recommendations—for example, on the need to play an active role in international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms. However, in the short time available I should like to focus my remarks on the broad issues of weapons proliferation and ballistic missile defence, especially in view of recent important developments—most notably, the new Administration in Washington.
    Such a debate is not new. More than a decade ago, when talking about the need to counter the emerging threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, former United States Senator Sam Nunn said:
    "We ought to let the facts speak for themselves."
    So what are the facts? The Select Committee notes scepticism in some quarters about the extent of the threat posed by the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by so-called rogue states.
    Overall, I agree with the view of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the threat of global nuclear war is now smaller than in the past. I certainly recognise that various treaties have played an important role in that, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South—West (Dr. Starkey) said. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the United States Defence Department has estimated that at least 30 countries now possess, or are in the process of acquiring and developing, capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction, using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, or the means to deliver them.
    The Select Committee notes some of the possible threats. Despite improvements on the Korean peninsula, to which the right hon. Member for Swansea, East referred, and irrespective of whether we label North Korea a rogue state or merely a state of concern, it is believed that the country has been building and selling long-range missiles, has chemical and biological warfare capabilities and may have diverted fissile material from nuclear weaponry.
    Iran, with foreign assistance, is buying and developing longer-range missiles, already has chemical weapons and is seeking nuclear and biological capabilities. This week, Russia and Iran signed their first co-operation pact since the 1979 revolution in Iran. Does the Minister share the concern that that may open a door to Iran's acquiring advanced conventional weapons and sensitive military technology?
    Mr. Savidge: Many hon. Members are anxious about the very fact that Russia and Iran are having those discussions, perhaps as a response to their concerns about
    1274
    national missile defence. That is why many of us are worried that NMD may increase proliferation, rather than reduce it.
    Mr. Spring: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which he also made in his speech, but I disagree with him, and I shall address the issue in a moment.
    Iraq, which had developed chemical and biological weapons and associated delivery means and was close to having a nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf war, may have reconstituted those efforts since the departure of the United Nations inspectors from Iraq in late 1998. On 25 February, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported Iraq's success in systematically cheating international controls to build up an arsenal of chemical weapons and a missile capability that could hit targets in Europe.
    I shall echo the extremely clear and articulate theme taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and say that also looming on the horizon is the prospect that such terror weapons will increasingly find their way into the hands of individuals and groups of fanatical terrorists or self-proclaimed apocalyptic prophets. The followers of bin Laden have, in fact, already been trained with toxic chemicals.
    Regrettably, it is all too clear that a nation that wants to develop ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction can now obtain extensive technical assistance from outside sources. So, despite our counter-proliferation policies, our efforts have merely slowed, not stopped, such proliferation. When the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed in 1972, only nine nations had a ballistic missile capability. Today, almost 30 years later, more than 30 nations have such a capability. The post-cold war environment has proved more open to proliferation activities.
    Indeed, the Prince Minister has described nuclear proliferation as
    "one of the most difficult problems that the world faces",
    and said that
    "we underestimate its significance at our peril."
    The historical perspective and the dangers were well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
    What is the Government's answer to the problem? The Foreign Affairs Committee states:
    "By contrast with the USA, the UK Government acknowledges the threats generated by WMD proliferation but does not appear compelled to take defensive action."
    That position is worth noting, but the other two positions are a great deal clearer. In Europe, as hon. Members have rightly observed, there is strong opposition to current US thinking on ballistic defence, notably on some of the grounds that we have heard in the debate—such as the alleged contravention of the ABM treaty. Indeed, some Ministers—notably the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, and perhaps even the Foreign Secretary—share such views. However, do they really believe that missile defences present a bigger threat to world peace than despotic states armed with weapons of mass destruction? The US position is also clear. Since the Select Committee wrote its report, the change of Administration in the US has led to an even firmer stance in favour of missile defence.

    1275
    Ballistic missile defence—global missile defence as opposed to national missile defence—has significant potential advantages for Britain. It would provide protection for the UK civilian population from the growing dangers posed by missile proliferation, thereby providing insurance against the failure of our nuclear and conventional deterrents. It would provide protection for UK expeditionary forces in a much-changed security landscape and it would provide a similar assurance to our American ally. If Europeans wish the US to be committed to international engagement, it is in Europe's interest for America to feel secure. Ballistic missile defence could also provide the most promising element in a new approach to arms control.
    Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman pursue the logic of one of his points? Was he suggesting that, in the hypothetical case in which British troops are operating abroad and are threatened by a non-nuclear power, he would use our nuclear weapons against that state?
    Mr. Spring: The whole point of having a deterrent is to deter. We have a global role and we wish to have the capability to back that up directly and indirectly. That is the point that I am making.
    On this issue, I part company with the Select Committee's conclusions. Britain should seize the opportunity to influence US thinking and should do so in Britain's interests. However, the current UK Government remain attached to keeping quiet for fear of upsetting one faction or another within their own political party. Therefore, there has been no proper response to the dangers posed by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction other than the promise to intensify the diplomatic means that have already proved inadequate.
    The Government claim that they do not need to take a decision because the type of system that the White House wants still has to be decided. However, the issue is not the type of system but the principle of missile defence, on which the US is firmly decided. What is needed is a firm statement of support for this principle, and I hope very much that the Minister will provide that today.
    The Foreign Secretary was reported as saying in The Daily Telegraph on 5 February:
    "This is an American debate and it's for the Americans to come to conclusions as to whether or not they believe a"—
    ballistic missile defence—
    "system will enhance their security"—.
    He was wrong. The developments that potentially threaten US security could also threaten UK security. It is for Britain to determine whether ballistic missile defence can enhance our security. It is irresponsible to continue to ignore the opportunity to shape and influence such a crucial debate. A programme will probably be developed, on which British lives and interests may come to depend. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) observed in a thoughtful contribution, we are not required to pick up the bill for all development work at this stage.
    1276
    Conservatives have made it clear that we will take a lead in building support in Europe for co-operating with the United States on the development of ballistic missile defences.
    Mr. Savidge: Is the hon. Gentleman supporting what the shadow Defence Secretary said on the "Today" programme when he acknowledged that the Conservatives expect to pick up a bill for the system in due course?
    Mr. Spring: We have made it plain that we wish to co-operate with the United States Administration. We want to be closely involved in the discussions and the process. At this stage, the costs are subjective. However, it is important that we co-operate because it is in our national interest to do so. In view of the fact that the United States has serious doubts about the European Union's defence capabilities, it is crucial that this country co-operates closely with the United States at this critical stage.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be disingenuous—or, perhaps, even worse—if we were to indulge in the discussion that the hon. Gentleman describes without having made the financial provision necessary to participate in a system of NMD, should that come about.
    Mr. Spring: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Americans will go ahead with the system. They have made it clear that they will finance it. Conservatives will discuss the extent and quality of our relationship with them when we win the next general election.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Look-even he is laughing.
    Mr. Spring: I am not laughing. However, it is good to see laughter on such solemn faces and to hear the hon. Gentleman, who is not usually so quiescent. He has been uncharacteristically mute throughout the debate and I am pleased that he has sprung to life.
    We have a golden opportunity jointly to face the threat of the 21st-century menace. It would be wrong to decline it. I conclude by paying tribute to a remarkably high-quality and informative Select Committee report, which, in many respects, will act as a benchmark for discussions on important issues.
    6.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): It has been a good debate, which was rounded off nicely by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referring to the outcome of the next general election, whenever that might be. It was worth waiting to see that laugh pass across his face when he spoke about winning it. That brightened up the evening.
    I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. All Members who contributed to the debate agreed that the report is a substantial and penetrating work, which I welcome. I do not say that simply because almost every recommendation supports or commends the Government's policies, but

    1277
    because in producing the report, the Committee has focused attention on one of the key security challenges facing the international community today. The debate has performed the same function, so I welcome it, too.
    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a key security challenge. It is important, when we debate the options, that we do not forget the circumstances. We are acutely aware of what we seek to counter.
    The good news is that since the end of the cold war, one threat has been dramatically reduced—that of a strategic nuclear exchange between superpowers. Russia and the United States have made major reductions in their nuclear weapons stockpiles and continue to discuss further cuts. We see that as a very high priority, and we continue to urge other nuclear weapons states to follow our lead by reducing their arsenals to the lowest possible levels. Ten years after the cold war ended, we can also see more clearly the new security threats that are emerging. As many hon. Members have recognised, those threats are more complex but they pose no less of a challenge. The spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles that can deliver them is foremost among them. We need to reinforce our efforts to understand and deal with this new security environment.
    Inevitably, there have been several references to Iraq. That is scarcely surprising because Iraq's pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in many ways symbolises the new threats that we face. The Government and the Select Committee are of one mind about the continued importance of containing Saddam, and I do not need to spell out to anyone here what he is capable of, as the use of chemical weapons against his neighbours and the Iraqi people tells the whole story eloquently.
    More than two years has passed since Iraq made it impossible for United Nations weapons inspectors to continue their work. No Member of the House is naive enough to believe that Iraq is not seeking to take advantage of their absence to pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It is a regime that belatedly and reluctantly admitted hiding chemical and biological weapons and missile parts in the desert, in railway tunnels and even in fridges in private homes. It is sobering to recall that UN inspectors remain unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals used for chemical weapons, 610 tonnes of chemicals used in the production of the deadly nerve gas VX and some 31,000 chemical munitions. The list goes on. We cannot afford to ignore Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity. Britain will not abandon its efforts to persuade Iraq to meet its obligations under the relevant resolutions. To do so would not only expose Iraq's neighbours and its own people to renewed threats from chemical and biological weapons, but threaten arms control and non-proliferation efforts in the middle east more widely and around the world.
    I said that Iraq is a symbol of the proliferation threat, but the Committee highlights other threats in its report. It mentions Iran, on which it shares the Government's specific concerns about reported Iranian efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Iran is also developing long-range missiles. The Committee's view is that the reformist cause in Iran and progress in the middle east peace process are keys to ensuring that Iran abides by its non-proliferation
    1278
    commitments. The Government agree, which is one reason for our continued demonstration of high-level support for the reformist policies initiated by President Khatami's Government.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Everybody shares the Minister's hopes, and I am sure that all those who have read the Select Committee's excellent report are in total agreement that diplomatic and political efforts to modify the extremely dangerous policies of regimes such as those in Iran and Iraq are essential. Is it not also the case, however, that wise democratic states, such as the United States and ourselves, ought to take precautionary measures of a defensive kind against the offensive technologies being designed by Iran and Iraq, and ballistic missile defence is therefore a wholly wise and sensible policy?
    Mr. Wilson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman expects, I shall come to that aspect of the debate. No one would suggest that it is not prudent to have defensive policies. Much of the debate has concerned the nature of those policies, and in a few moments I shall set out the Government's thinking.
    I remind hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office last month became the first British Cabinet Minister to visit Iran since the 1979 revolution. Her visit focused on drugs trafficking, but we hope that it will also be a major step in widening the range of contacts on issues of mutual concern. Discussion of non-proliferation issues with Iran is an important part of that dialogue.
    The Select Committee expressed concern about the situation in south Asia. I am grateful for its recognition and backing for our efforts to support India and Pakistan in turning back from the dangerous path that they have chosen. We regret that progress, as measured against the requirements of Security Council resolution 1172, remains negligible. We are particularly concerned that neither country has yet made any move to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. Britain, with like-minded countries, will not relax its efforts to promote compliance with Security Council resolution 1172. We shall continue to take every suitable opportunity to press our concerns on the Indian and Pakistani Governments. We shall also continue to encourage them to resolve the issues that still divide them.
    Finally, on regional issues, the Select Committee highlighted North Korea, to which a number of references have been scattered through our debate. The Government have supported strongly the efforts of the United States to halt North Korea's nuclear and ballistic programmes, thereby putting an end to destabilising North Korean missile exports. With our European partners, we are providing practical support for those efforts through the European Union's participation in the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation, KEDO.
    Progress in relations between the two Koreas, and between North Korea and the United States of America, enabled us to establish formal diplomatic relations with Pyongyang last year. We have made it clear to the North Koreans that we expect our advanced dialogue with them to address proliferation issues. Recently, we have seen an increase in North Korean rhetoric against the new American Administration, including threats to unfreeze its nuclear programme and end its moratorium on missile

    1279
    testing, which is deeply disturbing. We do not want last year's progress to be reversed, so we urge North Korea to choose engagement, not isolation.
    I turn to missile defence, on which we have had a high-quality debate within a debate, especially in response to the Select Committee's in-depth examination of the subject. I should like to touch first on the threat, because we should not lose that focus. Our concerns about missile proliferation are significant and growing. Forty countries have some sort of ballistic missile, 19 countries produce cruise missiles, and 50 countries have acquired cruise missiles. Those lists continue to grow. Many of those countries have weapons of mass destruction skills and capabilities, including countries in regions of great tension. Yet missile capabilities are developing beyond levels that seem reasonable for purposes of self-defence. The pursuit of longer-range missiles is of particular concern because it raises the spectre of a truly global threat.
    Since publication of the Select Committee report, the United States has elected a new President, who has made clear his commitment to a missile defence system. In response to the different views expressed by hon. Members in our debate, I should like to set out our position on American plans. In doing so, it may help if I put missile defence in context. President Bush has emphasised that his proposals for a limited missile defence arise from concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. It is intended to counter threats from countries that cause concern and from accidental launches. President Bush has said that missile defence is one defensive element of the United States response to that proliferation. It will supplement, not supplant, other ways of reducing the threat.
    We share American concerns about such proliferation and recognise the role that missile defences can play as one part of a strategy to obstruct and deter it. However, it is important to recognise that President Bush has made it clear that no decisions have been taken on the development or deployment of a specific missile defence system. He has emphasised that, before coming to a decision, the US will want to consult NATO allies, Russia and others.
    We welcome that approach. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will continue to work closely with the American Administration as they develop their thinking. We will do so as close allies with common strategic interests. Deeply felt concerns have been expressed today about the possible implications of missile defence which, of course, we recognise. The aim is to find a way through that addresses those concerns and United States objectives. In our view, such a way through is most likely to be achieved—this goes back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East at the beginning of the debate—through constructive engagement with the United States. That is the course that we are taking and urging others to take. Consultation, not confrontation, should be the way ahead. The same approach is urged upon us by the Committee.
    Some Members have spoken today about a new arms race, and those fears are understandable. There were interesting comments from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), and concerns were expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock
    1280
    and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and others, but those fears need not be realised.
    President Bush has spoken of his wish to reduce substantially the number of US nuclear weapons, and has directed the Pentagon to review that area of policy. Doubtless, the focus of that review will be to establish the defence rationale—to quote the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling—that underlies the proposal. That is a pertinent question. We applaud the review, which should be an important step in progress towards the Committee's hope for reductions by all nuclear weapons states to minimum deterrent levels.
    The issue of the use of facilities in the United Kingdom was raised by several hon. Members. As President Bush has made clear, it is too early to determine whether US plans will involve sites in this country. Any possible request will not be identifiable until after the President has considered his options and determined which type of system, if any, to develop. It would clearly be premature to speculate on what the US may propose.
    Missile defence gets the lion's share of media attention, but it is important to remember that there are other tools in the counter-proliferation armoury. Multilaterally, we support the missile technology control regime, which co-ordinates export controls against missile proliferation. It has been a success over the years, but export controls cannot do the whole job. Britain was therefore one of the initiators of work among MTCR members to develop a draft international code of conduct against ballistic missile proliferation.
    The code, which was adopted by all MTCR members in October last year, offers a set of confidence-building measures, including verification, aimed at promoting transparency in respect of missiles. We are engaged with our partners in promoting the draft code more widely among the international community. We hope that it will be formalised and adopted before too long. It could eventually form the first step towards an international instrument against missile proliferation, joining the other multilateral treaties about which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) spoke.
    In its report, the Committee examined the performance of various international instruments, including the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the chemical weapons convention and the biological and toxin weapons convention. It made a number of recommendations, and I am happy to say that the Government agree with the thrust of all of them. The non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is easy to forget that in the 1960s it was commonly assumed that, by the end of the 20th century, the number of states deploying nuclear weapons would be well over a score. The fact that that nightmare has not come to pass is due in no small part to the non-proliferation treaty.
    The achievement of last year's NPT review conference in reaching consensus on a final document was a considerable achievement. It was the first time that that had happened since 1985. I welcome the Committee's recognition of that achievement and the part played in it by the UK. I pay tribute to the personal role of my predecessor, now the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

    1281
    We are engaged in seeking to implement the agreements reached in New York last year. I have already referred to the need for further reductions in Russian and US arsenals. Our other priorities must be the implementation of the comprehensive test ban treaty and the start of negotiations in the conference on disarmament on a fissile material cut-off treaty. It is disappointing that discussions in Geneva remain deadlocked on that issue.
    I am conscious that I should leave a few minutes at the end for my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, so I shall say a quick word about the chemical weapons convention and the biological and toxin weapons convention. The CWC remains a landmark arms control treaty—the first occasion on which an entire category of weapons was prohibited on a verifiable basis. It has proved successful. Only four years after coming into force, 143 states are party to it. The Foreign Affairs Committee urges the pursuit of universality and the Government agree. We continue to urge all non-signatories to ratify the convention, especially those in regions of tension such as the middle east. The European Union is conducting a renewed round of diplomatic lobbying to that end.
    The chemical weapons convention is a good model. Its success has prompted the international community to open negotiations on a protocol to the biological and toxin weapons convention to improve confidence and compliance and to deter potential proliferators.
    I have described the importance that we place on the international conventions, which have proved their worth over the years. However, we are not starry eyed. We support universality, but we realise that some states will always choose to remain outside the mainstream. We support robust verification provisions, but Iraq showed that the determined proliferator can evade the most intrusive inspections. We therefore continue to place importance on rigorous enforcement of export controls on items that are related to weapons of mass destruction and on multilateral co-ordination of such controls through, for example, the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
    In answer to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde made about a successful outcome of the conference on small arms and light weapons, we firmly support Sir Michael Weston as the UK and EU candidate for the conference chair. That issue should be resolved soon—if possible, by the end of the third meeting of the preparatory committee in New York later this month. That is all I can say about small arms in my winding-up remarks.
    We have had a good, comprehensive debate, with extremely informed contributions from all parties. Again, I pay tribute to the Committee's work. I undertake to write to hon. Members about any points that I have not tackled.
    6.56 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: There is no opportunity to refer to colleagues' specific speeches, but I am confident that the debate has fully justified the Select Committee's decision to embark on our project and update the work of our predecessors in 1995. The quality of debate has been high. Our job was to provide an informed basis for the debate, and I pay tribute to all who have participated. I shall enjoy reading many of the contributions.
    1282
    There has been consensus, with perhaps two exceptions. The problem was clearly stated. The certainties of the cold war period have ended, and we face new, more complex threats. We must decide how best to respond to the gamut of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
    National missile defence understandably dominated the debate. Its deployment is not imminent; the new proposals that are under review by the United States Administration will take considerable time. Indeed, deployment is not inevitable, although there is considerable steam behind the project in the US.
    Such deployment would have substantial implications. With the end of mutually assured destruction, there is a danger that the US might consider itself invulnerable. It was pointed out in the debate that the US proposals do not cover a series of vulnerabilities. The Government can buy time because the US has not concluded its review or made a request to use RAF Fylingdales and upgrade its radar capacity.
    There is hope of some convergence and movement, for example in the case of China and Russia. The Russian proposals that were made to the Secretary General of NATO a few weeks ago suggest that Russia is at least prepared to enter into debate.
    Our final hope is that the Government have understood the anxieties. There is danger of general misunderstanding. Our report's conclusion on NMD states:
    "We recommend that the Government articulate the very strong concerns that have been expressed about NMD within the UK…We recommend that the Government encourage the USA to seek other ways of reducing the threats it perceives."
    The debate shows that that is relevant, and I hope that—
    It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That resources, not exceeding £410,620,000, be authorised, on account, for use during the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £508,690,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for the year ending on 31st March 2002 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    It being after Seven o' clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (3) (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and Order [27 February].

  ESTIMATES 2001–02 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2002 a number not exceeding 46,025 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 17,340 for service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 250 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, 2001–02 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2002 a number not exceeding 128,195 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 84,000 for service in the Reserve Land

  1283
  Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, 2001–02 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2002 a number not exceeding 57,485 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 23,750 for service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 430 for service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1999–2000
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £447,616.60 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC 323.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,327,637,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 255 and 256.

  ESTIMATES, 2001–02 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That further resources, not exceeding £120,516,064,000 be authorised on account, for use for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending 31st March 2002, and that a sum, not exceeding £120,348,528,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, to meet the costs of Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 251, 252, 253 and 254.
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mt. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson do prepare and bring it in.

  ESTIMATES, 2001–02 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
    Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 2000, 2001 and 2002: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 65].
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 119(9) (European Standing Committees)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    MOTOR VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICING
    That this House takes note of European Document No. 13889/00, a Commission report on the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No. 1475/95 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements; notes its conclusion that the 'natural link' between sales and after-sales service seems no longer to exist; notes further its conclusions that the objective of increasing the commercial independence of dealers has been achieved 'to only a limited extent', that independent repairers are being denied access to technical information, and that they offer services at least as good and generally cheaper than dealers; notes further that car buyers still face
    1284
    difficulties when they try to purchase new vehicles in another member state; and, in view of the Commission's clear finding that the justifications advanced in 1995 for the block exemption are no longer valid, calls on the European Commission, in line with the views of the UK Competition Commission, to allow the block exemption to expire in September 2002.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

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

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

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

  Footwear Industry (Norwich)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  7.3 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: A publication in 2000 entitled "Norfolk Century", from the presses of the Eastern Daily Press, records that
  "the rise and fall of the Norwich footwear industry is something that lingers in the memory of many, even at the turn of this new century."

  1285
  Forty years ago, there were nearly 30 shoe factories in Norwich, but by the late 1990s, just three of any significance remained. A growing flow of cheaper imports from other parts of the world is generally blamed for the industry's demise. It is certainly not a symptom of Labour Government policy, as a Conservative spokesman recently implied in Norwich, South.
  Women's and children's high-class footwear was the foundation of the Norwich footwear industry. The Norwich industry reacted well to the craze for dancing shoes, be they ballet shoes or shoes to enable the wearer better to quickstep or to waltz. The footwear was used in many dance halls across the country, and Norwich certainly had the market. Then came the fashion shoe. The Norwich work force, who were mainly women, rose to that challenge. To be a clicker was to be skilled, proud, a woman and employed.
  In the late 1960s, when I first arrived in Norwich, some 10,000 people were employed in the footwear industry. Norwich was not just about Norwich Union, but about firms such as Start-Rite, Bally, Norvic, Shiglo in Thetford, Sexton and Everards. Through the 1970s, the work force was reduced to some 6,000, as imports poured into this country. Despite a rare showing of trade union militancy in Norfolk, where there were marches, sit-ins and factory occupations—which were often sparked off by the ebullient Clive Jenkins and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs union—the industry went under. There was a famous sit-in by 12 women in Fakenham, a small Norfolk town. It gained admiration right across the world.
  Pell Footware, Trimfoot, Sextons and K Shoes closed in rapid succession, and in the 1980s Norvic disappeared. Start-Rite, whose shoe factory is still in Norwich, survived thanks to a policy of concentrating on children's shoes at the top end of the market, for which there was a growing export trade. Florida shoes concentrated on wider fitting shoes, which were popular among older and better-off women.
  I initiate this debate not as a true romantic, which I am certainly not, but in real anger that England's oldest shoemaker, Start-Rite, in a bid for survival, has just announced the redundancies of 100 operatives and workers in my constituency. It is hoped that that will save the remaining 250 jobs in Norwich and 350 retailing staff around the country.
  The company said that it has to follow its competitors and place work abroad because of rising United Kingdom labour costs and falling prices in the marketplace. Another reason it gave, which I find fascinating, is the collapse of the infrastructure that supported the industry. It also made the brilliant deduction that children were becoming more fashion-conscious at an earlier age.
  It is argued that it is difficult to get UK lasts and wax models used in the shoe manufacturing process. Nowadays, young people have mobile phones and computers, and are indeed fashion conscious. They wear Nike shoes and Dr. Martens. They are influenced by the David Beckhams of this world and the Spice Girls, and rarely by Cliff Richard, although other people may be. Cabinet Ministers may some day influence the fashion market with their shoes—who knows. A pair of Kinnocks might become quite fashionable—sturdy, reliable and solid.
  1286
  Meanwhile, the work in Norwich has been moved to India. The attachment of uppers to the shoe sole—the making operation, as it is called—will stay in Norwich. I note that footwear bosses in Norwich say that their factories are third-world, that the factories in India are way ahead of those here, and that labour costs are much too high in this country. One wonders what that implies for the labour costs in faraway lands such as India, even if they deny that they use cheap labour.
  The industry's traditional approach has been the "nothing we can do about it but lie back and take it" syndrome. Others in the shoe industry have taken a different approach An article in The Independent yesterday refers to two entrepreneurs, Marc Verona and David Conibere, who in 1995 saw a gap in the men's shoe market in this country for Italian shoes, and are now selling 800,000 pairs a year with a turnover of £16 million. They said that they had identified ordinary guys who
  "weren't fashion victims. They liked football and beer, and they didn't want their mates to take the mickey out of their shoes."
  That was hardly rocket science. It is was a fairly obvious observation, and they took the initiative. They talked about getting a buzz when they sell a shoe through their clever advertising and clever promotion, and about having the right product.
  I guess that the people who discovered Dr. Martens would say the same thing: they saw something in which many young people would be interested. There are crowds of people in shops trying on all the different Dr. Martens and hoping that they will be in the fashion arena.
  There is nothing shattering about designing and making shoes if one has entrepreneurial spirit. In Norwich, we have brilliant people—young and not so young—with street cred, some of whom work and make designs at the local art school. Have the captains of Norwich's footwear industry ever thought of putting such people on their boards, or on an advisory group or taskforce? Why does the East Anglia regional development agency always seem to talk about the entrepreneurial spirit in terms of biotechnology? The shoe and footwear industry would also benefit from the development of that spirit.
  Where was the RDA when those 100 jobs were lost at Start-Rite? What did its members say? There was absolute silence from the RDA. What has happened with Start-Rite in Norwich amounts to a challenge for the RDA. I hope that it has not written off the footwear industry, and that it is prepared to devote some effort to its promotion.
  Norwich produces bright people. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer learned about neo-classical endogenous growth theories from a Norwich-born lad, who has thus helped to develop the stable economy of which we are so proud today.
  There is no need for the footwear industry to leave Norwich, but it needs support. Britain leads the world in fashion and the design of clothes and other goods. We have bright and creative people who could do the same in the shoe industry, but their talent is not being used in Norwich.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will step in and ask the RDA to sit down and work out a plan for the whole industry. The industry is capable of creating products that would certainly be fashionable. Their manufacture would utilise the skill of the work force in

  1287
  Norwich and Norfolk, and the industry would benefit from the risk-taking adventurism of our young and talented Norfolk people.
  Not everything to do with fashion has to happen in London. It seems to me that Norwich's time has come. The Government should say as much and take the initiative by pulling together all the relevant groups. In that way we could exhibit in the footwear industry the entrepreneurial, innovative spirit that is evident in the biotechnology being developed in Norwich.
  There are many talented people—many of them women—who are crying out to use their ingenuity in the design of the sort of shoe that people want to wear. People do not wear three pairs of shoes a year any longer; they wear 12. Why are they labelled "Made in Brazil", "Made in Italy" or "Made in North Korea"? Why have we lost the label that used to say "Made in Norwich"?
  7.12 pm
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate on the future of the footwear industry in Norwich. He has explained most eloquently the problems facing the industry in general, and the companies in Norwich in particular. He made special reference to the Start-Rite company.
  I represent a constituency in the city of Leicester. In the past, that city was also a centre of the United Kingdom's footwear industry. Like my hon. Friend, I have witnessed the decline of employment and production in the industry. Footwear is still manufactured in Leicester and Norwich, but it is increasingly difficult even there to buy a shoe that is made in Britain.
  I am especially sorry to hear about the job losses announced by Start-Rite in Norwich. Like many parents, both in the House and outside it, the first pair of shoes that I bought for both my children were Start-Rite shoes. I continued to buy my children shoes from Start-Rite and other well known British manufacturers until they—like the young people described by my hon. Friend—insisted on a variety of high-fashion designs, in which fashion and styling were more important than the source of the product.
  I stress that the Employment Service, the local council and other agencies will do everything that they can to ensure that workers facing redundancy secure new jobs—and, if necessary, the new skills that will enable them to secure new jobs—as quickly as possible. I understand that the Employment Service in Norwich has already contacted Start-Rite to discuss the possible redundancies.
  I am glad to say that a wide range of vacancies is available in the city. The Employment Service stands ready to help any staff member who will be made redundant if Start-Rite proceeds with the proposed restructuring. The Employment Service will offer a range of services, including advice on benefits and information and help with available vacancies and training if that will open new possibilities for re-employment.
  Anyone who is made redundant will have immediate access to work-based learning for adults, which would normally be made available only to people who have been unemployed for more than six months. Of course, if any of the redundant workers are aged between 18 and 24, they will have early access to the new deal.
  1288
  The other practical offer that the Employment Service has made in Norwich is to look at the suitability of staff who might be made redundant for jobs in two local companies that are currently recruiting. We will also ensure that help from other agencies for people who face redundancy is co-ordinated through the local redundancy advice network.
  I know only too well from personal experience, as well as from the experience of many of my constituents, how painful and stressful it is to face redundancy. I hope none the less that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure those of his constituents who face possible redundancy that good-quality help is available—help that has been proven in redundancies in many parts of the country—and that re-employment prospects are good. The Norwich economy as a whole is thriving. There, too, as in the rest of the country, significantly more people are in employment than four years ago. Therefore, unpleasant and painful as any redundancy is for the individuals concerned, there is every indication that people such as his constituents with very good work experience and solid technical skills will be in strong demand.
  Having said that, I hope that Start-Rite will continue to be an important employer in Norwich and to contribute to the local economy and that it will develop its investment, products, design and marketing so as to remain an important feature of both the British and global footwear market.
  Unfortunately, in business life, firms have to reduce the work force, just as, on occasion and more happily, they are able to increase their work force. I understand that Start-Rite says that it has taken a number of years to come to that decision, which suggests that it was not lightly taken and that it was taken to protect the remaining 250 jobs in Norwich and the larger number of retail jobs that depend on the company. I was pleased that, more positively, the company announced a new business opportunity connected to the nationwide distribution of its shoes within Adams Childrenswear shops.
  As my hon. Friend has said, the Start-Rite brand is part of a very old British heritage. Start-Rite still has, and, I hope, will continue to have, many enthusiastic customers both here and worldwide. It has a strong brand to build on. I wish it every success in its efforts in continuing to compete in what is an increasingly competitive marketplace.
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Norwich City council has already contacted the company to offer it a meeting with the main local and regional organisations offering services that are relevant to Start-Rite: for example, those relating to training, innovation and exports. An official from my Department will attend that meeting, so that we can ensure that the company is aware of all the measures available to it within its industry.
  It is fair to say that the company has taken advantage of and benefited from some Government programmes already. In particular, it enjoys the support that is made available by Trade Partners UK for exhibiting at overseas trade fairs. In a related sector, textiles and clothing, we have already been able to expand the support that we give for overseas trade shows, to help it to build up its export markets.
  Start-Rite was also one of four British footwear manufacturers that was benchmarked against the Italian footwear production system in a recent Department of

  1289
  Trade and Industry-supported project. I am glad to say that that project's findings and recommendations have positive implications for continued United Kingdom manufacture for Start-Rite, the other three companies that participated in the study and other United Kingdom footwear manufacturers more widely. Through their trade association, we are ensuring that they all receive copies of the report and the encouragement to learn the lessons from that.
  As my hon. Friend said in his very vivid account of footwear manufacture in Norwich, the route to success these days is for companies to upgrade their design so that they combine an excellent quality of manufacture and particular attention to the needs of children's growing feet with the type of leading-edge, fashion-conscious and modern design and styling that children demand at an increasingly early age.
  That is one of the routes to success; another is in finding those niche markets where British companies continue to succeed. My hon. Friend referred quite rightly to the manufacture of ballet and dance shoes, of which Freed—another company from his city—is one of the world-leading manufacturers. Similarly, the Florida Group is investing heavily in machinery, a new product range and, I am particularly glad to say, e-commerce. I wish those companies as well as Start-Rite continued success.
  As my hon. Friend said, there has been a very long process of contraction in production and employment in the UK footwear industry. Despite that, and despite the very difficult exchange rate against the euro, the sector continues to be buoyant. There has been an increase in exports, which are now more than half of total United Kingdom production. In addition to the two Norwich companies that I mentioned, other companies are surviving and in some cases thriving quite well by concentrating on high-added-value niches—such as designer, street fashion, Goodyear Welted and children's fitted shoes.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of design, and I entirely endorse those comments. Our fashion and arts colleges continue to produce a steady stream of absolutely world-class designers. There are high-profile graduates from Cordwainers college—which is now part of the London college of fashion—including Patrick Cox, who is one of our highly successful younger footwear designers.
  We have strengths also in manufacturing, from Dr. Martens to high-bracket City shoes such as Church's, Crockett & Jones, Edward Green, Grenson and Tricker. Goodyear Welted construction is world renowned. Clarks, like Start-Rite, has a very strong reputation particularly for high-quality children's shoes. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet representatives of Griggs, which is the company behind the Dr. Martens brand, and I was able to discuss with them its strategy for dealing with the competitive environment in which it—like every other company in every tradeable sector—finds itself.
  We also have strengths in technology. Two of the leading computer programmes that provide technology for footwear production are of British origin.
  Therefore, my hon. Friend's comments on the long-term contraction of the industry are right. Clearly we are not going to be able to go backwards in this or any
  1290
  other industry. At the same time, industries and companies that are facing those enormous changes from globalisation and technological change, and from changes in the consumer market itself in the United Kingdom as well as abroad, need constantly to be reviewing their own strategy and their own investment to find the parts of the marketplace in which they can continue from a British manufacturing base to succeed both in the UK market and abroad.
  As I indicated with the examples that I have given, footwear manufacturers can continue to succeed and be profitable by concentrating on design and quality, particularly when they are in those high-value-added sub-sectors or niches.
  We have to recognise that 90 per cent. of demand in our footwear market is currently met by imports. Manufacturers have difficult decisions to make about how they spot the trends in taste in their consumer market and about how much, and which parts of their manufacturing, to source in the United Kingdom. Of course, footwear is by no means the only sector in which those difficult decisions have to be taken. One of the most competitive markets is in trainers, in which most of the best known brand names originate from outside the United Kingdom. Even there we have in New Balance in Cumbria a manufacturer—the only UK manufacturer—that is succeeding in the trainer market and has been increasing its production for sale in both the United Kingdom and Europe.
  Other companies have succeeded with street fashion styles and retro-styled models. My hon. Friend may remember winkle-pickers from his earlier days; I understand that they are selling extremely well in Japan, even if they have rather a small following in the United Kingdom.
  We will continue to work closely with the footwear industry in ensuring that companies are helped to identify those niche markets, to find where they can add value, to improve their styling and marketing and to adopt strategies that will succeed. We have been working with the industry-led footwear liaison action group and also with manufacturers and the unions, particularly the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades—KFAT—to develop an effective strategy for the industry. That includes looking at how we can more effectively link our outstanding designers with our manufacturers. That is relevant for the textile and clothing industries as well. If the footwear industry wants to make proposals for grant aid from my Department for programmes that could more effectively link our designers with our manufacturers, we will be happy to consider them in the normal way under the Department's innovation budget.
  As I indicated earlier, there have been successes in the industry, including the success in expanding export markets. We will continue to ensure that support is available and made known to the footwear companies to get them into those trade fairs overseas where they can grow new markets.
  Finally, let me return to the broader labour market in Norwich. There are, I am glad to say, a number of firms in a variety of sectors that are investing in my hon. Friend's city. Virgin One is recruiting 250 extra workers as part of its expansion programme. Marsh, the Norwich-based insurance company, will be creating 100 more jobs in the

  1291
  city, with recruitment beginning shortly. A call centre for Central Trust, another expanding financial services firm, will create 200 new jobs over the next 10 months. Other companies in my hon. Friend's constituency have recently created many more jobs as well.
  There is the proposed expansion of Norwich airport and there are plans for the retail sector to expand in the coming year. Norwich research park has a concentration of expertise in plant and food science, to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, it contains western Europe's largest concentration of expertise in plant and food science, bringing together the university of East Anglia, the John Innes Centre, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's research laboratory and the British Sugar Technical Centre. More than 1,000 scientists, researchers and technicians are undertaking world-class research in the connected areas of food, nutrition, human health and the consequences of climate change. I am
  1292
  pleased to say that the East of England development agency is supporting the foundation of an incubator centre for small businesses on the research park.
  I have never been one to argue—as many have over the last year—that the new economy is replacing the old, that high-tech industries and services are the only ones with a future or that our traditional manufacturing industries, such as footwear, are doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not accept that for a minute, and I believe that the examples of the many successful footwear companies to which both my hon. Friend and I have referred underline the fact that, in this fast-changing world, companies in every sector of the economy are having to adapt to new ways of producing things and the need to create, design and market new products.
  The companies that are succeeding and will succeed in footwear, as in other sectors, are those that innovate—those that have entrepreneurial drive. We will back them, and ensure that they continue to succeed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Housing Benefit
[Relevant document: Sixth Report of the Social Security Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 385.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am delighted to have the privilege of opening this short debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the same dress code rules apply in Westminster Hall as in the Chamber.
Mr. Kirkwood: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How embarrassing. Take two.
I am pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to open this important debate. I am delighted that the Liaison Committee was persuaded that this was an important subject that affected hon. Members on both sides of the House because of their casework and their commitment to look after their constituents' interests. There is certainly prima facie evidence that the housing benefits system is failing substantially in its application and its structure and that problems flow from that. The debate is therefore apposite.
I am also pleased to open the debate because the Select Committee that I have the privilege to chair undertook an inquiry into housing benefits in its sixth report last year. We took evidence and produced what I hope will prove an invaluable resource document for hon. Members. We took substantial evidence from most of the pressure groups, interested parties, local government associations and others. Although the report was published in July last year, I hope that it is still relevant and helps to focus some of the main issues that are still at the forefront of the minds of people who study these matters outside the House.
Housing benefit has an increasingly important part to play in the range of income support and financial resources available to low-income households. It is a subject that can fall into the interstices between housing policy on the one hand and benefit policy on the other. That makes it difficult for the Government. It is difficult to know who has the prime responsibility for taking the policy development forward where housing benefit straddles and overlaps the areas of pure housing development and social security plans in the respective Departments.
It is not a subject that it is easy to get right either because 4.5 million households rely on it. We pay a total of £12 billion. That is nearly 12 per cent. of our total social security spend and a significant proportion of public expenditure. Occasional difficulties and hiccups are almost inevitable in a system that deals with such
304WH
massed numbers of people who are in adverse financial circumstances. However, £12 billion is much better than nothing at all. We must always bear it in mind that, although the housing benefit system may have its problems, it has an important support role for people who are financially distressed.
The Committee was pleased that the Government undertook the March 1999 review of housing policy in a Green Paper. We thought that that was right and we looked forward to seeing the fruits of that Green Paper—consultation. We then took the view that it would have been right for the Committee to have taken on an inquiry. I shall spare her blushes, but the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) was quite—
Ms Karen Buck: Obsessive.
Mr. Kirkwood: I was looking for another word. The hon. Lady eloquently persuaded us that, once the Government had produced the Green Paper proposals on housing, it was time for the Committee to consider the impact of housing benefit on housing policy in London and elsewhere. Through her experience as a councillor, she knows a great deal about the issues. Her constituency is considerably stressed, because it is situated in a high-rent area, which brings problems of its own. I am particularly in her debt, because I learned a great deal by listening to accounts of the situations that she confronts daily in her constituency work. The Committee is grateful for her involvement, because it was right for us to consider housing benefit.
We became a little frustrated because the Green Paper took a long time to arrive, and we kept being told that it was coming next month or soon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Very soon.
Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed. By December 1999, we were so frustrated that we decided to proceed with our own inquiry, even though we did not have the advantage of knowing the Green Paper's conclusions. In retrospect, that was the right thing to do, because it took us until July to produce our report and recommendations. The Green Paper was published some time later. We have now been able to consider what the Government said, and some of the consultation and comments that have flowed from the paper have been helpful.
We were disappointed that we could not proceed more coherently, but we got there in the end. We have made recommendations, which the Government are considering. Their formal response was a little disappointing. It was quite full and well argued, but did not deal as thoroughly as we had hoped with some of the issues that we raised. Perhaps that is always the way with Government responses to Select Committee reports. I know that Governments cannot do everything all the time. I am not a Government Member, but they have achieved a lot on social policy generally and on social security. I broadly support the thrust of welfare-to-work provision. Work for those who can work and security for those who cannot is a perfectly arguable adage. From my perspective, there has certainly been much

305WH
more emphasis, perhaps rightly, on the first half of that adage and getting people who can work into work. A great deal of work has been done on that. Whether or not we agree with all of it, we certainly cannot accuse the Government of doing nothing.
However, there are real concerns about the impact of housing benefit policy when we come to consider security for those who cannot and never will be able to work, such as those with mental illnesses or stressed backgrounds and those from ethnic communities. There is a category of people to whom the Government have not yet adequately turned their attention. There is work still to be done on housing policy, and housing benefit as a part of it, which is a bit of a disappointment.
I do not want to turn this into a party political debate, because I hope that it will be more positive than that, but a Parliament has been lost in respect of significant housing and housing benefit reform. Indeed, evidence from pressure groups is mounting that the problems, far from lessening, have become worse over the past four years. I hope that this debate will allow consideration of some of the main concerns about housing benefit. There are two principal areas of concern that can sensibly be considered, both of which our report embraced. There is the question of administration and complexity. Separate from that is the need for long-term policy reform and a future strategy. I am concerned that we may concentrate exclusively in this debate on some of our constituents' short-term problems at the expense of trying to encourage the Government to share some of their thinking, such as it is, and to focus on what can be done in the longer term, in the next Parliament and beyond. I wish to spend a moment considering that.
I am not a housing expert and would never masquerade as one, but some requirements are stark and staringly obvious if sensible long-term reform is to be achieved. We need to examine the provision of tenure-neutral housing support. The current system is far too fragmented, and that is inevitable given the provenance of the current housing benefit scheme. It came from different systems of the public and private sectors and was designed to do different things. Some of it originated with local authorities, some with social security and the old supplementary benefits payment. One of the long-term goals that we should be aiming for is provision that is blind to the sort of housing that it supports.
We also want provisions that fit seamlessly into the new regimes and take us in the direction of tax credits rather than benefit payments. We cannot and should not ignore that. If we did, we would end up with a housing benefit system that did not fit, which would not be sensible. We must consider the need to establish common rules on such things as capital thresholds, earnings disregards and periods of entitlement. Those are all areas that agencies could more easily administrate. They would be more transparent for claimants if the rules were common to all systems of social security as well as housing.
We need urgent and radical reform. Reading the minds of Ministers, and between the lines of the Green Paper recommendation, the Government seem to be heading for some form of national flat rate. If they are, it will need to be topped up clearly and robustly by locally
306WH
variable amounts. I am convinced that a system that might be adequate for Roxburgh and Berwickshire simply would not begin to work in Regent's Park and Kensington. One can buy a modest estate in Roxburgh and Berwickshire for the rents in Regent's Park and Kensington. That must be taken into account in the long term if we want radical reform.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he means? Many of us who represent high-rent, high-priced inner urban areas also represent people who are very poor but who live in high-rent properties paid for by housing benefit. I, and I am sure many other hon. Members, would be concerned about any proposal for housing benefit to be cash-restricted, which would effectively mean the export of poor people from areas such as mine.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am obviously not making myself clear. It is precisely to protect against that eventuality that I am arguing for local variations. We need to take account of high-rent areas. If I have learned anything from the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, it is that rents in parts of London, with which I am not familiar, for obvious reasons, are astronomically—and, to me, unbelievably—high. That must be taken into account in any structural reform.
Mr. Corbyn: So the hon. Gentleman agrees with me?
Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed, and not for the first time.
I am sure that the Minister needs no persuasion that housing benefit is often the biggest remaining obstacle for claimant households trying to get back into work. Such cases may not be a large proportion of the housing benefit claimant case load, but there are significant hurdles in the way of people on housing benefit who want to move. They do not want to prejudice their ability to receive the benefit because it is so difficult to reclaim. I have evidence in my constituency of people who would be prepared to take the risk of going to find work elsewhere, but they will not come to Regent's Park and be faced with horrendous levels of rent if they think that they may lose their housing benefit entitlement. That needs urgently to be addressed if the Government's policy of encouraging more people out of dependency and into work is to be successful. It is regrettable that after four years of the current Parliament we have travelled little further on from where we came in. I hoped that, whoever wins the election, the next Government will view the matter more urgently and will implement a change that is long overdue. Will the Minister give us a flavour of what the Government regard as viable longer-term options?
Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will have read the Green Paper and the response to it. We made it clear that long-term options for housing benefit had to await rent restructuring. For obvious reasons, the Green Paper estimated the period necessary for rent restructuring at seven to 10 years.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is a long time. I did not realise that the Government had publicly made that clear. That is a real problem, because if we have to wait for rent reform, structural reform of housing benefit will not

307WH
happen for at least 10 years. I regard that as far too long, and I hope that we can persuade the Government to view the matter with greater urgency. If the evil manifestations of the current system continue for another 10 years, goodness knows how many people will suffer in the meantime.
Angela Eagle: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to gain the impression that we will not do anything to reform housing benefit for seven to 10 years. He asked about the long-term structural changes in the Green Paper, which included moving to a flat-rate style housing benefit system. The Government had considered the possibility, and the Green Paper included consultation on the subject. The outcome of the process is that the Government are not contemplating radical change to housing benefit before the restructuring of rents. It would not work until the rent structure became more coherent than it is now.
Mr. Kirkwood: That cheers me up, but only a little. I accept that big changes should not be rushed—in case people lose and get hurt—and that restructuring rent strategy takes a long time. I will hold the Minister to her commitment that the Government will not do nothing about the problem for 10 years. The Government have mentioned some potentially useful ideas since the Green Paper and our report were published.
I shall now deal with improving the administration of the scheme. I suspect that hon. Members are interested mainly in how their constituents will be affected here and now. The present delay and confusion in the system is certainly causing problems. All the consulted pressure groups—Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which published a document yesterday—confirm how dire the current position is. They have shown that improvements such as the verification framework, which was rightly introduced to bear down on fraud, have slowed the system and caused even more delays. Even intended improvements can have perverse effects.
Outsourcing is another real difficulty, which is beginning to compound the problems of investigation. It is necessary to investigate some private sector companies' performance. Some hon. Members present have more direct experience than I do. I hope that they will share some of that experience with us.
There are problems with outsourcing. I am not an expert in the fine detail, but it strikes me as odd that the Government threaten public authorities that are struggling to administer a scheme. Big brother central Government say, "If you don't get it right in a fortnight, we will outsource." I am sure that much can be learned from the private sector; clever consultants can help. However, it is wrong to use outsourcing as an active threat—almost as a sanction—against local authorities that do not have adequate resources and are inundated by case loads that are difficult to administer.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North made it clear—it is a problem that I do not have in my constituency—that the level of pay that is offered by the Benefits Agency and the housing authority makes it impossible to win, train and retain staff who are able to deal with complicated situations Turnover rates are high. People are hired and trained, their civil service
308WH
background and training give them a high market rating, and they move on. It is wrong and counterproductive for central Government to use that hopeless situation as a big stick with which to beat local authorities.
Some changes are introduced in a capricious manner. The changes that the Department made to its own management information systems were visited on local authorities without notice, out of the blue. Great difficulties were caused because there was no training or IT back-up. Department officials must exercise self-discipline when introducing legislative and regulatory changes. There must be greater stability; in fact, there should be an annual deadline, a point each year after which no further reforms or changes to the benefits system are issued from the Adelphi office to local authorities and others. That would provide some stability for the people who provide the administrative systems for paying benefits.
Finally, additional resources or subsidies are urgently needed if the system is to be rescued from its present state. I do not care whether qualifications or conditions are imposed to link extra resources with administrative improvements. The need is great—I will discuss some details shortly—but the additional resources that have been made available to support the administrative regimes do not come near to matching it. Ministers should be concerned about that.
A problem that is of increasing concern to me—it has more to do with social security than housing—is the number of households in the United Kingdom that are living below income support and jobseeker's allowance levels. The number is much higher than the vast majority of folk realise. Households fall below the meagre safety level of support in two ways as a result of housing benefit. First, institutional restrictions, which are internal to the system itself, are put on the level of payments that can be made for housing costs. People have to take resources from their income support or other income streams, because housing benefit can no longer be depended on to meet their actual housing costs. That problem exists not only in London, but in constituencies as far north as mine. People find it difficult to make up housing costs from other income streams, and the problem is worsening.
Secondly, because the administration is now so poor, payment of the benefits to which people are entitled is delayed. That leads inexorably to rent arrears and, thereafter, eviction. Computers do not have any sense: they spew out eviction letters. An 85-year-old churchwarden had her confidence in life destroyed, not because her housing benefit was cut but because she was threatened with eviction. She was perplexed and it took me a long time to persuade her that her approach was too responsible and old-fashioned, and that the problem could be fixed because it was just part of the system. That is not the worst case and hon. Members will have other examples of stressed households, but it happened in my constituency only last week. Households are being driven systematically below income support and jobseeker's allowance levels in a way that we cannot ignore.
The sixth report of the Social Security Committee on housing benefit raised issues such as entitlement to housing benefit being set for fixed periods. There was

309WH
some encouragement in that respect, as the Government did not say no, although they did not say yes either. We hold out some hope of pensioners having an annual fixed entitlement; their financial circumstances are unlikely to change and there is little point chasing average pensioner households, especially in my constituency, where they are a stable cohort of the population.
We must consider the number of rates and levels of non-dependant deductions. There is a case for them to be reduced, perhaps over a period, as such things are expensive; there are no blank cheques. However, there are frequent occasions on which non-dependant deductions exceed rent levels, which does not make much sense. The matter must be considered urgently.
The rules restricting private rents also need to be considered urgently; the Government's response gave us some comfort and we may return to the matter later in the debate. Single-room rent restrictions need to be reviewed and I am pleased that the Government are broadening some of the types of single-room rents that can be considered. However, it is a marginal change; it does not fill us with confidence that the Government are dealing with the problem, especially when households with under-25s are involved.
The report drew attention to the exceptional hardship provision and how it is used, or not used. More resources could be made available; if there were more flexibility, everyone would be more able to cope with the circumstances that arise. The Government response to the report stated that there had been increases in earnings disregards, but they should be restored and updated regularly, just as they are in other parts of the benefits system.
Fraud and error are not specifically housing benefit issues. However, I am worried that there is so much party political discussion about fraud that it deters people who have a genuine entitlement, especially retired people, from making claims. If an election is visited upon us, every political party, including my own, will say that we must bear down on fraud, and so we must, but we must be disciplined about using language correctly and getting things properly targeted; we must be sure that we are talking about confirmed or suspected fraud, so that there is a sensible relationship to what actually happens. People make assumptions about fraud without having any evidence, and that must be dealt with.
Fraud and error could be much better and more substantially addressed if the system were easier to administer and to understand. Some of the experiments that we saw in Lewisham, for example, used clever, modern technology to cut delays and make administration much easier. The explanation process that is made available to claimants from the beginning is excellent, and staff morale was high when we visited recently. It is a model of what can be achieved with some extra resources and creativity.
I hope that the Minister will speak about what is happening to the verification programme. All the evidence available to me since the report was produced says that, in many cases, the verification procedures are substantially slowing down the application process and,
310WH
worryingly, contributing to arrears. The inspectors, who do valuable work to assist the authorities in the verification framework project, need to support and to co-operate with the authorities to secure improvement, rather than appearing out of the blue as men from the Ministry to threaten fire and brimstone if local authorities do not quickly improve their operations.
The Government's response to the report was a little disappointing. Since then, they have, through the Green Paper, made it clear that they want to concentrate on raising standards in administration. That is right and proper, and I hope that the Minister will talk about how they want to do that. They also said that they were trying to simplify the system. We support that enthusiastically, although some of the suggestions that we have seen, helpful as they are, do not go far enough by themselves. The Government would have to take radical and far-reaching steps to deal with the problems surrounding tapers, disregards and non-dependant deductions before we were assured that their response was adequate.
The tone of some recent statements from those responsible for housing, rather than benefit, has been more encouraging. If the Minister can help me this afternoon—if not, a letter would be acceptable, and I would ensure that other Members had access to it—I would like assurances on timings and, specifically, on the question of setting housing benefit for fixed periods, which applies to requirements to notify changes as well. We gained the impression that the Government were actively considering positive changes on that, and if the hon. Lady could say anything about that today, it would be welcomed. On simplifying rules, the ministerial mind might be currently applying itself to examining the rules that restrict eligibility of private sector rents, but whether that is in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Department of Social Security, I know not. However, if the Minister could report anything about that, it would also be welcomed.
I have spoken to registered social landlords, and get the impression that the Government are constructively considering involving them in the verification process as a way of speeding it up.
Mr. Corbyn: On the idea of involving registered social landlords, I can see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. However, the efficiency of services run by registered social landlords varies enormously, and I am concerned that if some housing associations become involved in verification, the situation might be worse than if local authorities did it.
Mr. Kirkwood: I accept the hon. Gentleman's wider experience and more detailed knowledge of the scheme. He has a perfectly valid point, and if landlords are to be involved there must be proper safeguards and standards. Involving third party organisations in people's personal details should not be done casually; we must be clear that people's rights remain protected. Perhaps the scheme would be too hard to implement but, if there is anything in consultation, we would be pleased to hear about it.
During the inquiry, I was impressed by the depth and strength of feeling of claimants, pressure groups, local authority organisations and academics, who consider

311WH
that the situation is still unacceptable and who say that, in some instances, it is becoming worse. If that is true, we cannot ignore it. The Government in all their various departmental manifestations need urgently to reflect on what additional consideration can be given to housing benefit. Additional resources are inevitable. I am not talking about sums that would be significant in public expenditure terms. Some money has been put into help teams and that is welcome, but I am not reassured that the Government have yet seriously grasped the extent of the problem.
To achieve short-term improvements and the longer-term fundamental changes to prevent millions of citizens from being consigned to poverty for a long time, it is necessary for the Government urgently and seriously to respond adequately to the representations that have been made from not only outside the House, but colleagues and Select Committees such as ours, which in the sixth report has seriously suggested ways forward. Naturally, the Government must measure the resources conflict that some suggestions may involve, but I hope that the Minister will give us some short-term cheer this afternoon in the expectation that, in 10 years' time, some of us may not be here to cheer her improvements in the long-term fundamental reform of the housing benefit system.
3.6 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I woke up this morning and thought, "Great, an opportunity to discuss housing benefit." That worried me for two reasons. First, I am becoming weird and, secondly, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, it reflects the fact that housing benefit has not achieved anything like the attention that it warrants. We must bear in mind its scale and importance—4 million households depend on housing benefit—and that, in some parts of the country, the situation is catastrophic and the delivery of housing benefit has almost collapsed.
The National Housing Federation report was published yesterday. It was also the 18th birthday of housing benefit, but there is no cause for celebration. The federation concluded that housing benefit is paid to some of the most vulnerable people in society. It said that in the summer of 1999 a crisis affecting passport claims hit the headlines, politicians quickly moved into action and, as a result, only 500 people actually missed their holiday. That was bad news for those people, but housing benefit affects many more people than that and can result in more serious problems than missing a holiday. Urgent action is needed now to tackle the crisis that is hitting people's homes. As the hon. Gentleman said, to place emphasis on that point in no way detracts from the fact that, before Christmas, the Government made various welcome announcements in response to the consultation process on the housing Green Paper. No one is accusing the Government of inaction, but clearly a great deal more can be done.
Housing benefit is the backstop that keeps a roof over people's heads. It is disproportionately paid to potentially vulnerable people, such as pensioners, families with children and people who are ill and disabled. We should be proud of the system because arguably there is nothing more important than a secure home. Without that security, all the Government's other
312WH
objectives of promoting work, education, good health and so on cannot be achieved. The housing benefit system should underpin the brave and bold commitment of the Government to tackle child and pensioner poverty. At present, however, it is not doing that.
The roots of the problem go back a long way—it has not emerged recently—to the conscious decision of previous Governments, after the institution of the current structure of housing benefit, to shift housing subsidies from bricks and mortar to individuals. The problem also stems from a long-term failure to invest in benefit administration sufficient to provide a quality service to claimants on low incomes. Since 1997, the Government have made excellent progress on a number of relevant fronts, especially through the ONE pilots and the development of personal advisers in the new deal. However, the problems that afflict so many areas of the country show how much more must be done.
I can scarcely put a cigarette paper between my opinions on this matter and those of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, apart from one point. I understand and accept the need for caution and the importance of not rushing into a set of fundamental reforms of subsidy in a way that would inadvertently lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions of losers. We cannot do everything at once and fundamental reform is tricky. Some element of rent restructuring is essential, especially to allow housing subsidies to facilitate the better use of the housing stock. Housing benefit fraud is a serious issue, and there is a need for a version of a verification framework and all that goes with it. All those things are taken as given.
In preparing for this debate, I went back to the Beveridge report to see what it said about housing subsidies. It would be fair to say that Beveridge bottled it. The report states that the country should give future Governments
"twenty years for dealing with the rent problem, that is to say, reducing the anomalous rent level of London and the acute individual inequalities, which persist throughout the country…The extreme variation of rents is evidence of failure to distribute industry and population and of failure to provide housing according to needs. No scale of social insurance benefits free from objection can be framed while the failure continues."
If Governments failed to deal with those problems for 55 years after Beveridge, it is unsurprising that this Labour Government have failed to tackle it in just four years. We need more time. However, the thought of the 59 years since those words were written would cause me considerable anxiety if we were not planning to make any more radical reform for another seven to 10 years. I can easily imagine the matter stretching on to 100 years in that case—although I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that that will not happen.
Angela Eagle: Clearly, the introduction of tax credits into the system has implications for housing benefit. A lot of work will have to be done to ensure that the making work pay agenda is not weakened by the anomalous nature of some housing benefit structures. Although, by definition, big flat-rate reform cannot be on the agenda until rents have been restructured, a

313WH
person does not have to be a genius to understand that an extension of the tax credit system would have implications for housing benefit.
Ms Buck: I warmly welcome those comments from the Minister. I will return to the matter, but I accept her point.
I welcome, too, the range of specific initiatives announced before Christmas to deal with some problems that have emerged in the administration and delivery of housing benefit and aspects of the policy agenda. There was a degree of relaxation of single-room rent restriction, the establishment of the expert health team and the first significant increase in financial support for local authorities since 1993. Those policies show that the Government are listening and responding to problems on the ground. They are especially welcome after an initially disappointing response to Select Committee reports in the summer. We have made progress and will make more.
The current situation requires significant and urgent change and I expect a future Labour Government to make the issue an absolute priority. There are three main clusters that must be addressed. First, administration must improve, with a consequent improvement of people's experiences of claiming, which can undermine their experience of the welfare state.
The problems that have emerged in different parts of the country have been devastating for hundreds of thousands of individuals, but I will concentrate on my constituency experiences. I have dealt with hundreds of individuals who have received possession notices. That is a dreadful experience for such individuals, who may be elderly, disabled or bringing up children. Such experiences are a result of the extremely ill-thought-out and mismanaged process of privatising the benefit service to Capita. At one point, I believe that 27,000 items of post built up, with a backlog of cases that has stretched back since last April.
I am pleased that the peak of the crisis in Westminster has passed and that is a tribute to the client team of Westminster city council, which has taken the brunt of dealing with cases on behalf of councillors, advice agencies and me. However, even though the peak has passed, lives are being turned upside down. A constituent named Louisa wrote to me last week, saying:
"Ms Buck, I am writing to you as the worker in the housing benefit department told me that they couldn't do anything more about my case, apart from waiting, and that is something I have been doing since last April, so the lady suggested I see my MP."
It says something when the administrators of housing benefit pass on their cases to a Member of Parliament. The letter continues:
"I applied in April…over the next seven months I gave the same documents in again and again…In December they gave me my cheque…Three weeks later they asked me to renew my claim…I have now been waiting another 8 weeks…I have two small children to feed and clothe and I am on anti-depressants. I can't take any more of this."
One of my local law centres in Paddington, to which I pay tribute for the amount of work it has done, said that
"claimants with outstanding claims for housing and council tax benefit are invariably issued with summonses for arrears, court costs are added to these, all where the substantive problem is the
314WH
failure to process benefit. It then takes numerous letters and calls to get these costs waived, and this despite numerous assurances from Westminster that costs should never be imposed where there is underlying benefit entitlement."
I share its view that the decision to privatise Westminster's service made no sense at the time and, when examined now, it has been a total waste of public money, with no obvious gain to either the council or benefit recipients.
Another of my constituents, named Stephen, gave up the keys to his flat and we believe that he has been living rough as a result of the extreme anxiety that he experienced when the North British Housing Association delivered him a notice to quit because his benefits could not be resolved. He wrote:
"Almost every day in the last two weeks of my tenancy I phoned the Benefits helpline to inform them that they must finalise my claims. I stressed to them that they had no more time left. There is a high risk that my TB will return as I could not finish my last treatment (when homeless and walking the streets all day). I regard Westminster Council as criminal."
Those letters, which have been picked from the top of my post, are illustrative of the problem.
The case of Stephen, a former rough sleeper who we now understand to be back on the streets, leads me to the second issue that should be delivered by a housing benefit system that is working properly. Housing subsidy must counter poverty and social exclusion, not reinforce it. That is achieved in many parts of the country. I agree that it is a badge of pride to have a housing benefits service that can satisfactorily relieve the pressure of housing costs, when administered properly, as it is in seven tenths of the country or more. In areas of high housing cost, however, it simply does not do that.
According to the North British Housing Association, part of Stephen's problem is that Westminster council told him that his rent was too high and that after payments were made he would still have to make a weekly contribution of £42.70, presumably out of his incapacity benefit or jobseeker's allowance. The neighbourhood officer of the North British Housing Association stated:
"I too am concerned that he has returned to the streets, especially as he is in poor health, but we have no way of contacting him".
If that is not a case of the reinforcement of social exclusion, I do not know what is.
At the heart of the problem is the shortfall between actual rent and housing benefit payments, which is now commonplace across London and in many other high-cost areas in the south-east such as Brighton and Oxford, and even in north Wales, which the Select Committee visited to see the system in operation last summer. I was shocked to discover that a problem that I thought was confined to central London was being replicated in an area of low housing cost and demand.
I have dealt with dozens of cases of shortfall over the years, as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament. I am reminded of the case of a pregnant woman who shared a one-bedroomed flat with a friend in one of the poorest streets in my constituency—I assure hon. Members that there are many such streets in my constituency—and who, after housing benefit or rent restrictions had been imposed, had £12 a week left to live on. I had to engage the social services department to try to introduce a child protection approach to that case.

315WH
According to the evidence presented to the Committee last year, 54,000 families with children on income support or jobseeker's allowance had their benefit restricted by an average of £6 a week. We also presented as evidence to the Committee the study done by the London Housing Unit on Brent council. It found that the average shortfall was £17.13 a week, with 15 per cent. of claimants facing a rent gap of £30 a week. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is a consequence of changes made to the housing benefit system under the previous Government, especially those introduced in 1996. However, that does not make me feel any better about it.
The Government have taken some positive steps, such as the relaxation on single-room rent, which is one aspect of the rent restrictions issue. I welcome that, although I share Shelter's view that a strong case remains for total abolition, as the single-room rent provision takes no account of the availability of accommodation matching the single-room rent definition in a particular area. Much will depend on the detailed consultation on the matter, which we are still awaiting. I would be pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister comment on that.
The national private landlord and tenant working group, which deserves a great deal of congratulation for its work in finding common ground between landlords and representatives of tenants, confirms the point. It states:
"We find much to commend in the government's proposals to reform Housing Benefit".
It then highlights the priority for more change than has so far been proposed on shortfall, stating:
"Many areas of the country report a growing discrepancy between average market rents and Local Reference Rent…We would like a commitment to a consultation of how Local Reference Rents are valued and by whom, in order to ensure claimants are not excluded from private rented accommodation or caught by large Housing Benefit shortfalls, because the valuations do not truly reflect market rents."
I strongly support that call. I would welcome the Minister's response to that point, either during this debate or subsequently.
Doing nothing about this issue is not an option, partly because so much distress is being caused to a statistically small but none the less significant number of people, but also because of the knock-on consequences of housing benefit restrictions for the whole issue of access to social housing.
I am indebted to the London Housing Unit for drawing attention to the increasing exclusion of low-income households from the private rented sector. The number of private tenants on housing benefit has halved in recent years. That fall is far greater than can be explained by the decline in unemployment.
Half a million fewer low-income households will soon be housed in private rented housing than in 1996. That decline is sharpest in areas such as London. Where are those who are not using housing benefit to access private rented accommodation? From studying applications to local authority housing departments I know that the answer is that those people are calling upon the scarce resource of social rented housing. People coming to the end of an assured shorthold tenancy are one of the biggest groups making a demand on social rented housing, either because they have been struggling for
316WH
half the period of their assured tenancy to meet the shortfall or because, when their rent is revalued, they find themselves in a category in which housing benefit will not cover the entire rent. Those people are now joining the queue for social rented housing and, ironically, ending up back in temporary or bed-and-breakfast accommodation at fantastic expense to the public purse.
It appears that the undershoot on housing benefit expenditure in recent years is partly due to an underestimate of savings following the 1996 changes in rent restrictions. The Minister should accept that there is room for manoeuvre, because a joined-up analysis of costs would surely find that savings on housing benefit are inevitably being shunted on to other budgets. We need a healthy private rented sector to allow mobility in the labour market and, for the foreseeable future, to provide a valuable supplement to housing association and council property, which is in such short supply. Putting the squeeze on people accessing such accommodation on low incomes is causing all sorts of problems.
No one is saying that all restrictions should be lifted. I understand that the public purse should not subsidise penthouses in Mayfair, and having served on numerous housing benefit review tribunals in Westminster in the early 1990s, I assure hon. Members that that occasionally happened. However, the pendulum has swung too far. Too many people are being caught by restrictions that are damaging to the private rented sector and have consequential effects that must be dealt with.
My third group of points, after administration and poverty, concerns the question of work incentives. Housing benefit is the last piece in the jigsaw of welfare reform. It is especially critical in areas of high housing cost, where the interaction between housing benefit and the working families tax credit—and, potentially, the integrated child credit—are such that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people in areas of high housing cost to get out of unemployment and back to work.
The Government have been sympathetic to the need for change to make it easier for people to enter the workplace after they have been on housing benefits—by passporting claims for example—but more is needed. The Select Committee report endorses a fixed-term entitlement for working claimants of six months, with a safety net for changes of circumstances. I strongly agree with that, and encourage the Minister to be as positive as possible in helping us to deal with that matter.
I would also support an easing of the burden of the higher rate of non-dependant deductions, and, as Shelter is recommending, the introduction of a cap of no more than 50 per cent. of the total rent, partly because that would encourage members of the household other than the tenant to work. It would also relieve stress and strife within households. In my surgery, I have witnessed the tensions that can occur in families when adults call upon children to contribute to the rent. That can contribute to the break up of households, which leads to 19 and 20-year-olds seeking help to secure housing because they are unable to stay at home and because of the complexity of the benefit system.
In future, the Government could act swiftly on the issue of earnings disregard to float a significant number of claimants off benefit. Last summer, I asked questions

317WH
that led me to understand that to increase the level by £10 a week for families with children would cost around £70 million. The net cost of returning to the 1988 levels would be £35 million. That is not a huge sum.
Despite excellent initiatives such as the working families tax credit, pockets of concentrated unemployment in areas such as my constituency highlight the fact that it is necessary to provide the extra incentive and to remove the fear that plagues people when they are deciding whether, in effect, to risk their home by entering employment.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has produced excellent work on the matter. I share its view that the reform would not increase the complexity of benefits and would be easy for claimants to understand. It stated:
"Those whose incomes are low enough to qualify for both tax credits and housing benefit are those who benefited least from tax credit reforms."
Although there have been huge improvements over recent years, about 200,000 families still face marginal withdrawal rates in excess of 80 per cent., and I suggest that many of them live in high housing cost areas such as London and the south-east.
The Minister indicated that, in principle, she was sympathetic about the issue of housing credit. The Social Security Committee's report strongly supported it because it would float many people off dependence on housing benefit. They would not, therefore, have to make claims, and that would have the positive knock-on effect of easing the administrative burden on local authorities.
It is important to maintain an individually sensitive top-up in areas of high housing cost because that enables people on lower incomes to remain resident in high-housing-cost areas. It would be bad for local economies if they had to move away.
It is impossible to separate the various strands of administration and delivery of the scheme from policy reform issues. The Select Committee report made several proposals to enhance the policy objectives of tackling poverty, improving work incentives and, in the longer term, helping to facilitate the best use of the housing stock and encouraging mobility between housing sectors.
The last thing that we need is a big bang response. Several fairly inexpensive proposals could be introduced in relation to poverty, work incentives and easing administration of the system.
In the immediate term, close monitoring is necessary. The proposals that the Government brought forward before Christmas must be delivered on so that the threat to people's homes and security that are implicit in the maladministration of benefit in some areas can be lifted. We can then turn our attention to creating a system of which we can be proud. It would be marvellous if the next Labour Government were able to achieve that which Beveridge, 50 years ago, could not.
3.34 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate. I feel a sense of déjà vu in debates on housing benefit, and I remember the days of Haringey council in
318WH
the early 1980s, when we earnestly debated whether we wanted to administer housing benefit. Indeed, it was slightly peculiar that the then Government decided that local government should administer housing benefit, which is after all a social security benefit like any other. I suppose that the assumption was that the majority of the recipients of housing benefit would be local authority tenants. Although that may still be true, the world has moved on a great deal since 1981. Many local authorities administer housing benefit moderately well, some do it very well, the majority do it not especially well and some do it downright appallingly.
I am a former member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which investigated housing benefit fraud. Most housing benefit fraud is committed by private landlords who, for example, create fictitious tenants and fictitious tenancies or double-occupy places. Any number of highly imaginative scams take place that result in millions of pounds going to landlords who do not deserve a ha'penny. I have no sympathy for them or for anyone who deliberately defrauds the system. However, another form of fraud is committed when people who are entitled to benefit do not receive it and as a result lose their home. That is the tragic experience that I shall briefly recount.
My borough, Islington, like many other boroughs, administers housing benefit. From the 1980s onwards, the council was run largely through a large number of neighbourhood offices, from which housing benefit was administered. The idea was that all services were local and officials were therefore more locally accountable and in touch.
Some evidence suggests that that system helped cut housing benefit fraud. Local officers tended to know the 20 or 30 streets nearest the office, and if they had an unusually large number of claimants from one address, they would spot that. They realised that it was impossible to have 20 or 30 tenants in a four-bedroomed house and that fraud was perhaps being committed through double accounting. That is not necessarily spotted in a much more centralised system. I do not pretend that the system was overwhelmingly efficient, but it was possible for councillors, advice agencies and people such as me to achieve a result and to contact the appropriate official
The council turned its back on neighbourhood offices some years later. It centralised the system, and housing benefit efficiency got worse. The housing benefit factory that the council set up proved a bit of a nightmare, and the Conservative Government did not allow the council the capital necessary to invest in new IT equipment to improve the service. The council therefore did what many other local authorities have done, and outsourced the administration of housing benefit—in Islington's case to a company called ITNET. The circumstances worsened considerably, and the council acted according to the current contract culture and appointed a consultant to liaise between the council and the private contractor and to send reports to the council about how bad the service was. The reports were interesting. The circumstances are completely mad. A Government benefit is being paid via a local authority and an outsourced company, ITNET, and reported on by an independent consultant.

319WH
I asked for a copy of the contract signed between Islington borough council and ITNET. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has asked for exactly the same for the company that runs housing benefit in her area, Centra—or rather, Capita; the other runs buses, and the matter gets confused.
I received an interesting variety of responses, including that the contract was commercially confidential, that it was private, that it was not a public document and that I had no right to see it. Councillors are not sure whether they are allowed to see it. After I put a lot of pressure on the council, I was finally told that I could see the document, but that I could read it only under supervision and could not have a copy to take away, as it was commercially sensitive. That is barmy, baloney and nonsense. We are dealing with a public benefit paid to the public under social security rules by a company that is doing it with monumental inefficiency and, because of the terms of the contracts, making huge profits along the way. The result is absolute misery for the people whom I represent.
At the high point of ITNET's inefficiency, there were almost 21,000 unopened envelopes it its office. I invited myself down there and it thoughtfully opened all the envelopes before I got there: it had put them through a letter-opener, which sliced off the top of the envelope, but no papers were taken out. I was assured that it had opened the envelopes. When I said that it looked as though the boxes contained the misery of 21,000 people's lives, I was told that that was a gross exaggeration because many people wrote in several times when they did not receive their housing benefit and so it might be as few as 10,000 people whose lives were made a total misery. It is not right for one person's life to be made a total misery, let alone however many thousand.
I have reached the end of my tether with this company, as have the majority of people in Islington. The misery that it causes is unbelievable. My advice surgery, like those of other hon. Members who represent inner-London constituencies, is full of people who lead stressful lives. They are bringing up children, holding down a job or in some cases two jobs, and all the rest. Some are unemployed. To have problems getting housing benefit is bad enough, but when the council sends out a legal notice for eviction from a council property because its agency is so incompetent that it cannot pay the housing benefit that that tenant is due, one wonders where Franz Kafka went wrong.
The situation is bizarre. The council has an agency the job of which is to pay rent to people. It is simply incapable of transferring £61 a week from department A to department B. The result is that the tenant runs up huge arrears. The case then goes to court. A judge rarely, if ever, grants an order for eviction of local authority tenants, but a county court order may be issued against them, with the result that they cannot obtain a credit card or borrow money. Any check on their character will show them to be of bad character in some way. We end up almost criminalising people because they have the misfortune to deal with a housing benefit company that is so inefficient that it cannot deliver the benefit that people need. That is disgraceful.
320WH
Pensioners often come to my surgeries. They are respectable people who have worked all their lives as cleaners, nurses, postmen and all the rest. They have religiously paid their rent throughout their working lives. To them it is a badge of honour that they have never been in rent arrears. They find it deeply hurtful to receive a letter telling them that they are £700 in arrears and asking what they intend to do about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North pointed out, for people who are tenants of registered social landlords, more commonly known as housing associations, or private tenants, the situation is quite different and in some cases much worse.
Some of the smaller housing associations have a terrible cash flow problem. One of them in my area was £1.5 million in arrears of rent income due to the incompetence of ITNET. The larger registered social landlords can bear that for a while, but they must pay interest on a bank overdraft in order to pay for a benefit that should have been paid to them. For private tenants, the situation is dire. I am not surprised that there has been a reduction in the number of private tenancies that are paid through housing benefit. I have seen a copy of a circular issued by one of the larger letting agencies in my constituency which said that it would no longer let to anyone entitled to housing benefit from the London borough of Islington because it did not believe that it would ever get the money.
Other north London Members of Parliament will bear witness to that process. A steady stream of tenants and landlords come to my advice surgery saying, "For God's sake, please get us some money to ensure that the rent is paid." In some cases, they are very small landlords; someone may let a flat in part of his own house and depend on the rent to pay the mortgage on the rest of the property. If the landlord gets into arrears, matters get worse and worse.
We have seen the benefit fraud inspectorate report. The report of the director of housing to the Islington housing committee dated December 2000 states:
"A seven-year contract with ITNET was let in October 1998. The contract provides for a possible break at year 5 (October 2003) if the 2002/3 key performance indicator is 6 per cent. or more below the benchmark performance."
The council feels absolutely stuck in a contract with that company, which threatens to sue any local authority that breaches the contract. The company has threatened the London borough of Hackney, which is also a recipient of ITNET services, if that is not a contradiction in terms, with legal action for breach of contract. Any tenant who lost his property or home as a result of the company's actions would have a moral right to sue the company.
The number of outstanding cases has reduced to about 5,000, but there are probably enormous arrears. I compliment the Select Committee on its report, which suggests that the performance of the contractors who handle housing benefit should be examined. We are talking not just about a financial relationship between local authorities and the Government but about an immediate, direct, absolute payment to which people are entitled. I dread to think of the misery that would be caused if income support were outsourced to companies such as ITNET.
Angela Eagle: The Government have no plans to outsource the administration of income support.
Mr. Corbyn: I was not for a moment suggesting that that was the case. I was merely drawing a parallel between the misery caused and the horrendous result of inefficiency in benefit delivery for the people who receive it.
The BFI report stated:
"The Council is also seriously criticised for under-resourcing the work of the fraud investigation and ITNET is criticised for its lack of commitment to overpayment recovery. The report contains a large number of detailed recommendations designed to improve the administration of benefits…A detailed action plan…has been drawn up…the council will advise the DSS of its full commitment to implement that action plan as part of its overall housing benefit recovery strategy."
Again, I invite the Minister seriously to consider the performance of the company, the cost of its inefficiency to the public purse and the social and emotional costs to people who may be thrown out of a private rented flat, with little chance of finding anywhere else to live. That is an absolute scandal; I know that the Minister shares my concerns about the matter and I hope that she will be resolute in her dealings with the housing benefit companies.
I represent an inner-London borough, an area of high housing stress, high housing costs and a massive property boom. Indeed, one sometimes feels that one is living in the midst of people who see everything in terms of liquidating assets: in other words, selling property. The philosophy of everyone, including the council, is to get rid of whatever property they have because it is a way of raising more money.
The inefficiency of housing benefit is compounded by rising rent levels in the private sector, which means that unless people under housing stress are nominated for a local authority or housing association property they have no chance whatever of staying in the borough. A two-bedroomed flat in my constituency, even on a major thoroughfare such as the Holloway road, costs £150,000 to £200,000 and those prices are going up rapidly all the time. Buying a house is impossible even for someone on double or treble average income in London—never mind the country as a whole. If people can get a nomination to a council or housing association property and keep it, that is fine—they will have some security and, one hopes, a reasonable place to live—but the shortage of housing means that many people are living in overcrowded council flats that are often damp and in some cases poorly maintained, with limited possibility of a transfer.
I invite the Minister to reflect on our housing strategy, perhaps not today but as part of a wider consideration. I compliment the Government on the fact that a great deal of money has been invested in housing improvements and repairs. The quality of life for many people on estates has improved dramatically over the past three years as a result of new roofs, new windows, new drainage systems, new central heating systems, anti-crime initiatives and so on. All such improvements are welcome. Estates are more habitable than they were three or four years ago, and I compliment the Government on that. However, if we are to prevent London from becoming a two-class city, in which the rich live in expensive central London and the poor are
322WH
exported to the most distant suburbs or even further away, we must invest more money in affordable rented housing. I understand where the Government are coming from when they say that they want specialist housing for teachers and police officers, but we also need specialist housing for postmen, hospital cleaners and so on. One cannot restrict such housing to a few groups.
We are spending vast amounts on housing benefit for people in private rented accommodation. I gave an idea of the cost of buying property in my constituency; to rent, one is talking about £200 or £300 a week. Councils often pay £500 a week or more for leased property and, if tenants are on housing benefit, we end up paying that through the public purse. In the longer run, it would be much cheaper to invest in purchasing and building new property for affordable rent than to subsidise private landlords through housing benefit. The Select Committee has looked at that; I understand that rapid and sudden changes could have the perverse effect of reducing the amount of available property. However, we must look at our desperate social housing needs. Unless we do, London's housing problems will be ignored and great numbers of people will be forced out of London. It is a serious issue. I recognise that that is the flip side of the experience of other hon. Members, particularly those representing constituencies in the north-east and northwest, where council accommodation is often under-occupied. We cannot tell the poor of London to move somewhere else: they have families, jobs and commitments. I invite the Government to think about that.
The 1974 Labour Government were concerned about housing and did a lot to expand council housing stock. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and I were members of Haringey council at various times in the 1970s and 1980s; it routinely completed up to 1,000 new dwellings a year. Indeed, my hon. Friend was chair of the housing committee at one point.
Mr. Andrew Love: It was a long time ago.
Mr. Corbyn: It was not that long ago. All things are relative.
We need to look at the level of private sector rents and whether housing benefit could be improved by some form of rent control such as that which the 1974–79 Labour Government introduced. Many people are purchasing properties in London to rent out because the rental income is so enormous. That is forcing up prices in London, which can have a knock-on effect on housing benefit.
I hope that the Minister will understand that we expect her to put pressure on inner-London local authorities that suffer from the inefficiencies of contractors, to ensure that our constituents get a fair deal and have the security of knowing that, if they are entitled to receive benefit, their rent will be paid.
3.55 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to participate in this important debate and to follow the previous three hon. Members who have spoken. I associate myself with many of the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington,

323WH
North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
Housing benefit is a crucial plank of the Government's social policy. Housing and council tax benefit provide support to 4.5 million people throughout the country. As the report outlines, in May 1998, just over 2.6 million of those were council tenants, 840,000 were housing association tenants and 970,000 were the tenants of private landlords. About 64 per cent. of housing benefit claimants were in receipt of other benefits such as income support or jobseeker's allowance. Of the 4.5 million claimants, 1.8 million—41 per cent.—were aged 60 or older, 1.4 million—32 per cent.—were from households with children and 930,000 were lone parents.
Housing benefit undoubtedly helps some of the most deprived parts of the country. We have spent most of our time focusing on London, so it is appropriate for me to outline the profile of my constituency in South Yorkshire. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it has a GDP per capita level of 62 per cent. of the European average—the lowest in the UK. No wonder South Yorkshire qualifies for objective 1 funding for the first time. One in three households in my constituency have at least one disabled person living in them—a direct consequence and legacy of the former mining and heavy engineering industry in the area.
Of the two local authorities that I represent, Barnsley has approximately 25,000 people on housing or council tax benefit, and Doncaster about 31,000. It certainly provides a lifeline in such vulnerable communities. The system is and should continue to be operated by local government. It needs to be delivered locally and provides a rebate against the local council tax or the charge for housing accommodation.
There are two current problems. First, the process for claiming housing benefit is becoming increasingly complicated. Secondly, are we reimbursing the full cost to local authorities? I recognise the need to drive fraud out of the benefit system—one of the key ways of modernising it—but there should be a balance between robustly reducing the capacity for fraud and avoiding excessively complicated administration. Claimants should not be put off bothering to claim and the administrative overheads should not be prohibitive.
The report recognises that many local authorities are experiencing difficulties in managing the housing benefit system. As hon. Members have said, numerous local authorities have significant backlogs of payments. Obviously, that causes additional hardship for some of the most hard-up people in the country. That is not always because local government cannot manage those services properly. The problems exist whether the services are managed in-house or outsourced. Many of the problems that London is experiencing have to do with outsourcing rather than internal local authority systems. My hon. Friend the Minister needs to take on board that important point. The fact that both local government and the private sector are struggling with the issue must tell us something. There is no doubt that there are examples of good practice by local authorities, on which we need to build. Indeed, paragraph 114 of the report, with which I entirely agree, specifically refers to that.
324WH
I shall take an example to give hon. Members an idea of the proportions of the complications. One of my local authorities, Barnsley, recently needed to take on 20 additional staff to deal with the growing backlog. Why do such backlogs exist? One major reason is that there are endless amendments to the process. I recently discussed that subject with the borough treasurer in Barnsley, who showed me a thick file full of changes that have been made to the regulations over the past few years.
The treasurer advised me that there are about 90 major changes to the benefits system each year—a pattern which has persisted over the past three to four years in our attempts to deliver our social policy or to reduce the possibility of fraud. Both are desirable aims, but they put an immense strain on the staff working on the systems, which are all heavily computerised for obvious reasons. Amendments to the computer systems must therefore be made, and the time spent inputting documentation on a claim has increased by 50 per cent. over the past few years. The additional information requirements also need to be considered. Currently, we ask for the national insurance numbers of claimants and partners, proof of identify of claimants and partners, tenancy types, landlord details, information on subsidy matters and rent officer details. Obviously, some of that information needs to be uploaded on to the computer, but I sometimes wonder whether it is all necessary.
Local authorities have been provided with a new standard form, which has taken about 12 months to prepare. Authorities are encouraged to use the form, which has 24 pages and is twice as long as the existing one. In our desire to ensure that we target and deliver the benefits to the most deserving cases, we might be in danger of creating a bureaucratic nightmare that could bring the system to a grinding halt. We must not allow such a situation to arise, and I am sure that the Minister will not allow that.
Local authorities provide social housing, and I firmly believe that there should be a future role for local authorities as direct housing providers. They provide decent, affordable housing for those in our communities who are disadvantaged and quite often vulnerable. In Barnsley, 15,300 local authority tenants are on benefits. The real question is whether the Government are properly funding local authority housing or asking, through the housing revenue subsidy system, the poor to pay for the poor.
The housing revenue subsidy claim system is extremely complicated. I am not an expert, but I will try to deal with its general thrust. In 1980, the previous Government introduced the basis of the system for revenue funding for local authority housing services. I think that the House has accepted that the system of funding for local authority services, the standard spending assessment formula-funded mechanism for local government services in general, is not only unfair but implausible. We are considering doing away with the current system.
The introduction of the housing subsidy system in 1980 led to claims that local authority housing tenants might be asked to bear the cost of rent rebates for council tenants. By and large, that system remains unaltered. The system for the housing revenue account works on the basis of a notional revenue account that

325WH
must balance. Within the system, we claim that the cost of rent rebates is funded 100 per cent. but, at the same time, we withdraw from local authorities subsidies that would have been used to maintain and repair houses. That clawback is carried out on the basis that the notional housing revenue accounts are in surplus, because we have either increased the rents or given derisory increases to the authorities for management and maintenance.
Local authorities are reaching crisis point, and in future only a handful will not be in deficit and repaying housing subsidy directly to the Government. It is estimated that local housing authorities will return £1 billion to the Treasury this year. How can that be right, when we have identified that there is a backlog in repairs to local authority housing of some £20 billion? The simple answer is that, although we try to convince ourselves that we are fully funding housing benefits, we are not.
To give an example from one of my authorities, once again Barnsley, this year's estimate for the total cost of benefit payments is £24.5 million. The total benefit subsidy notionally received from the Treasury is also £24.5 million. The calculation of total subsidy payable to the authority, using the current system of notional housing revenue account, gives the authority £14.6 million, which leaves a funding gap that is repayable to the Treasury of £9.9 million. Next year's position will be disguised by the introduction of the major repairs allowance, paid through the subsidy system rather than through capital allocations. That was the case with credit approvals, which have virtually disappeared with the introduction of the MRA.
Even with an estimated MRA of £11.6 million, Barnsley forecasts that it will be in negative subsidy for the next two years. However, that authority is not profligate. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we always spend our money wisely in Yorkshire. A survey of tenants found that the housing service is good, and the Government continue to rate Barnsley as above average, with a good management service. A recent certified valuation of the housing stock revealed that nearly £90 million needs to be spent on repairs and replacements over the next five years, which is more than double the likely available resources in that period. Despite that, we as a Government ask authorities throughout the country such as Barnsley to repay, to the Treasury, money that should be spent on maintaining the housing stock. Clearly, we cannot do both: we either fully fund housing benefit or take money away from local authorities that sorely need the subsidy for investment purposes.
We need a housing benefit scheme that is neither so complex, nor subject to continuous change. We must simplify and stabilise the housing benefit system. The Social Security Committee report contains several positive proposals, and I congratulate the Committee on its work. I hope that, in the fullness of time, most of the points will be given full consideration by the Government for inclusion in a new housing benefit system that caters more for housing benefit recipients.
4.8 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) painted graphic, if depressing, pictures of the desperate situations in their constituencies because of their local authorities farming out to a private company the delivery of housing benefit to their residents. In the light of those contributions, I should say that my borough—the London borough of Camden—has received two charter marks for the excellence of its delivery of the housing benefits system.
I am somewhat bemused that neighbouring authorities with similar problems did not ask my borough of Camden for advice or hints on how best to administer the housing benefits system. Perhaps there was a different Government in office when the change in benefits delivery came in, and they were not allowed to go to a local authority.
In his opening remarks, the Chairman of the Select Committee referred to his shock at some of the rents that are charged in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) made a contribution that was not London-based. I join him in congratulating the Chairman and the Select Committee on an excellent report. I sincerely hope that the Government will take on board its recommendations and, as far as London is concerned, that they will process some of the changes more expeditiously than they seem to be doing at present.
I am grateful for a handy little booklet about London that was published this year by the National Housing Federation and entitled "A Tale of Two Cities". It contains many facts that I imagine most London Members are familiar with, but I thought that it might be helpful on the subject of rent levels. The London Research Centre rents bulletin, which was published in March 2000, indicates that a two-bedroomed property costs on average £285 a week in the private sector. One would expect to pay nearly £380 a week for three bedrooms. I am dealing with a case in my constituency involving a studio flat that is currently renting for £390 a week; the landlord wants to increase the rent to £650a week.
Another point that may be useful with regard to London—I do not think that I am overly stressing London's housing crisis—is that more than 70 per cent. of all new lettings by London housing associations are to households that have no wage earner. That fact is from National Housing Federation statistics released in January 2001. Yet London's population continues to grow. In common with my hon. Friends who touched on the point, I strongly welcome the Government's commitment to affordable social housing, the release of capital receipts and the money for local authorities to enter into partnerships for new build, refurbishment and rehabilitation of properties. However, for a considerable time to come, the majority of people in London will find homes for themselves and their families only within the private rented sector and with rents at the levels that I have elicited, housing benefit will clearly be vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North highlighted the fact that housing benefit is claimed by some of the most vulnerable in our

327WH
society. We know who they are: pensioners, people with disabilities and single-parent families. I hope that the Government will attack with some speed the issue of how people are kept in poverty by the present structure of housing benefit. The Government have introduced policies to encourage single parents back into the work force because of the benefits that that can provide. Those benefits are not exclusively financial, but include a sense of worth and dignity and a model for children of how life could be. I hope that the Government will examine the situation where a woman —it seems to affect women particularly—finds a job, but the minute that she starts work, she is in danger of a reduction in housing benefit and of losing the family home. That must be tackled with some speed.
I wish to mention some issues in my own constituency. The London borough of Camden's delivery of housing benefit is excellent. However, some constituents who come to my surgery will never be housed by a local authority because they will never fit into the statutory categories in London. They are exclusively dependent on the private rented sector, and are finding increasingly that, due to failures in the delivery of housing benefit, private landlords are unwilling to let to tenants who—perhaps only in the first instance—may need to pay their rent via the housing benefit system. I believe that to be true throughout London.
The issue has also impacted on several housing associations that are responsible for properties in a much wider area of London than my constituency. A housing association in my constituency that has worked in the sector for a considerable number of years, and which has a high reputation for being efficient, innovative and practical, at one stage was looking at a cash shortfall of £6 million. That is almost unsustainable in a sector where those who are engaged in such matters and who are subject to pressures on the ground and from London Members of Parliament must be able to concentrate their efforts on increasing the affordable housing stock. They have to spend hours, if not days, tracking down local authorities to find out when they will receive rent for the properties that the housing association is managing well. That is unacceptable, given the level of human commitment and the costs to housing associations. It is not the only housing association that I know of in London that has suffered such a serious shortfall because of the inadequacies that its tenants have experienced in obtaining housing benefit.
The problem has severely affected those mainly voluntary organisations that operate hostels for rough sleepers who are temporarily in that position. It should be possible to ensure that such people are not, as one administrator said, almost hung out to dry because of the failure of housing benefit to reach their coffers. The hostels are improving all the time; none the less the available bed space or room space is known. Invariably, because of London's housing crisis, they are full. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, housing benefit is part of the social security system and, in a sense, it is paid by the state to individuals in that way. Why cannot such establishments receive annually the cost of the total housing benefit? If, at the end of the year, a couple of rooms or beds were not used 365 days
328WH
of the year, a repayment could be made to central Government or the money could be rolled on into the payments for the following year.
Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, when the verification and identification requirements were introduced—in other words, housing benefits could not be accessed without there being a national insurance number or identification to stop fraud—we realised that problems arose because of people who had difficulty with identification? Such people were often rough sleepers and the homeless. We introduced an exception for the hostels, which say that that has very much helped homeless people access the system. We are aware of some of the difficulties of applying the full rigour of the system to those who are most vulnerable.
Ms Jackson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would not want her or the Government to believe that organisations that deal directly with rough sleepers and the homeless are not immensely grateful for the changes that have been introduced to the benefits system. The changes have enabled such individuals to make a claim. None the less, that is only one part of the picture. The other part of the picture—the money being delivered to the organisation running the hostel—is not as smooth or immediate as it should be. As it is extremely likely that such establishments will be full for a considerable period, additional benefits might accrue if the Government were to fund such establishments for, say, a year, with safeguards in place.
When I floated the idea at a conference of rough sleepers, a rough sleeper said to me, "That would be entirely wrong, because it would take away the right of the rough sleeper to turn down a hostel if he did not like it. He would have to go where the money was." I understand that point entirely, but it begs the question of why the pavement is more acceptable to rough sleepers and homeless people as a bed for the night than the hostel. That is a wider issue than housing benefit, and relates to wider social inequities in this country.
The other issue on which I would like to touch stems from a report conducted by the London Housing Unit for and on behalf of the Brent private tenants rights group, which was briefly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. The issue detailed in the report is the shortfall between what is agreed by a rent officer as the acceptable rent for a property and what the private landlord charges for that space. I admit that the report examines only a small group in Brent. However, it is abundantly clear that, in that part of London, it is the tenants of the poorer, less well-maintained properties—which have fewer facilities, poorer decoration and, in some instances, less security—who face much greater shortfalls than tenants of properties in the same area which are better-maintained and for which the rent may be higher. That warrants the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security examining the guidelines and rules within which rent officers are working.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North highlighted the fraud that everyone knows is being perpetuated by some, but—I hasten to say—not all private landlords. The most grievous fraud, however, is

329WH
when a rent is charged that bears no relation whatever to the value of the property concerned, and when an individual has to pay a sizeable proportion of that rent because the housing benefit does not meet it in total. I repeat that the people whom we are considering are, almost exclusively, some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As I said, I trust that the two Government Departments that are most involved in this area will conduct a joint examination of the matter.
The Government's commitment to affordable social housing, their attempt to make the benefits system infinitely easier to understand and the changes that they have made to housing benefit, as well as other initiatives, are intended to begin to break down social exclusion and to afford equality of opportunity for everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said, how can people participate in the wide variety of programmes stemming from the Government if they do not have a home of their own? I would hate to think that the huge thrust of the Government's policy in those areas would run into the sand on the issue of housing benefit not being paid.
The Government have invested a considerable amount of money in the rough sleepers unit, for example, and, through the ideas of Supporting People, a new approach to some of the most vulnerable people in our society is being contemplated. It would be a complete waste of public money and of the best possible intentions if housing benefit within London were not tackled even more urgently than at present. If it is not tackled, more people will become homeless. I am sure that no hon. Members would want to see a return to the numbers of homeless people on the streets of London that were seen in the early 1980s. That was a shame and a stain on the city and society.
4.25 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I understood that I would be called alongside other Front-Bench speakers, but I am happy to speak now. The measured speeches of hon. Members have built on a very good report that makes criticisms, yet has the support of all parties.
Housing benefit will celebrate its 18th birthday in April. However, as the National Housing Federation rightly said in its report of this week, that is not a cause for celebration because, for many people, it is a cause of great despair. Let us hope that some of the 34 recommendations made by the Select Committee will lead to serious change. More than 4 million people claim housing benefit, which costs more than £12 billion. Evidence from the report, from other literature and from practical casework—certainly in my constituency—shows that the system does not deliver. It puts people in debt, makes people homeless and causes landlords and tenants much grief, so today's debate is very timely.
I shall discuss regulations and reality. Housing benefit regulations state that claims can be processed within 14 days.
Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the processing time of 14 days is a target for local
330WH
authorities? However, the clock does not start ticking on the target until the local authority has gathered all the relevant information. Part of the problem of the claiming process is the need to create a situation in which that can occur sensibly. The target does not tell the whole story.
Mr. Burstow: One can conclude from the Minister's intervention that the target is meaningless and does not help in understanding how local authorities discharge their responsibilities under the rules and regulations set out by the Department.
The reality is somewhat different from the target. The average delay is more than 20 weeks and in London it can be as long as six months. The National Housing Federation states that average arrears are £1,102. Nationally, 1.5 million people are in arrears because the system does not work, and that costs £1.6 billion.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned costs incurred by housing associations, in addition to the costs faced by individuals. The associations estimate that they bear costs of £84 million as a consequence of failures of the system.
I am sure that other hon. Members have seen the letter from the Places for People Group, which is a large organisation that covers a number of registered social landlords and housing associations. It wrote to a number of hon. Members who they believed might participate in the debate and cited figures that graphically demonstrate the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North. The letter said:
"NBH is dependent on Housing Benefit for 60 per cent. of its rental income. Our annual turnover is £140m. Conservative estimates from our staff estimate that £2.5 million is owing in housing benefit. This represents 31 per cent. of current arrears, 2.3 per cent. of our rent roll. The following demonstrates the financial impact of Housing Benefit delays on NBH in the last year were as follows: impact of four week rule—extra £1.75 m arrears; verification framework—£0.5m arrears; poor local authority administration—£0.25m."
Those figures may be borne out by many other housing associations throughout the country.
The system is failing for several reasons with which the report deals. It is too easy to blame local government, but today's speeches show that criticism is levelled not simply at local government but at the system with which it has been lumbered and of which it must try to make the best. Governments of any hue must take the responsibility for sorting out the mess. The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) is right to recognise the complications and costs that local government faces in administering the system. Some 12 per cent. of the social security budget is expended on the housing benefit system. The matter must be addressed seriously and as rapidly as possible.
Performance varies throughout the country. Hon. Members have provided anecdotal evidence of how yariable practice is. Performance can be poor but, on the other hand, we should acknowledge that some councils provide an excellent service from which we should learn.
The Select Committee's central conclusion was that housing benefit was far too complicated. In the past year, 80 circulars and regulations were issued by the Department to make changes within the system. The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough

331WH
referred to his chief financial officer's comment that, on average, 90 changes had been made in a year. It is no wonder that it is a sheer nightmare to run the system. Will the Minister say whether, at least in the short term, greater stability could be given to the system?
The report rightly advocates a change to a simpler system. I shall refer to a few issues raised in the report, in the hope that the Minister will respond to them. First, the report refers to the possibility of creating more stability for the housing benefit recipient by introducing fixed entitlement periods. In "The Way Forward for Housing" Green Paper, the Government said that they were willing to take that direction in respect of pensioners, to give them more certainty that they could meet their housing costs. The paper produced by the Chartered Institute of Housing on the subject makes the point that that policy would allow us to target resources better in dealing with the more risky claims and ensuring that they were processed fairly, efficiently and quickly. The policy of fixing the period at six or 12 months needs to be considered, but the Government, despite claiming that they would consider it, have given no commitment. Will the Minister tell us what the time scale is for that consideration and when we will see the outcome? The year 2003 has been suggested as a possible date for those changes to be brought in. Given what we have heard about overall fundamental reform, that sounds a long time away. Perhaps something could happen sooner than that.
The second issue relates to discussing with social landlords their role and establishing how they can play a part in verification procedures. The Places for People Group has invested a large sum of money in assisting and working alongside housing associations to ensure that their tenants receive their housing benefit as soon as possible. Surely, however, a further role could be discussed and appropriate standards set, monitored and delivered to accelerate the verification of various documents. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North that some smaller housing associations may not be able to do that. I hope that in the discussions that the Minister said would take place with registered social landlords the Government will pursue the possibility of giving them some role in bringing the process up to speed. Results can then be delivered more quickly, and we can avoid problems whereby people lose or do not receive their benefit in time and lose their property.
Thirdly, I welcome the initiative to establish housing benefit help teams to assist in areas where there is failure.
Angela Eagle: It is important to put it on record that the help teams have been established not to go into areas where there is failure but to help local authorities that are experiencing difficulties and request access to extra managerial and strategic help. If we were to use the term "failure", no one would want a visit from an expert help team. The concept relies on joint partnership and local authorities being sufficiently confident to ask for assistance. I would therefore prefer the hon. Gentleman to use another word.
Mr. Burstow: I accept that point, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about how we choose our language in respect of fraud. The
332WH
point relates to how we raise the standards of all to those of the very best, and make use of the skills and expertise of people in local government, in the Department of Social Security and elsewhere. In that regard, it would be helpful if the Minister told us by what criteria Bristol city council, East Ayrshire council, Kingston upon Hull city council and the London borough of Lambeth were selected for inclusion in the first tranche of the exercises. It would be useful for other local authorities that may want to take part and to benefit from the housing benefit help team if she clarified that.
I understand that, when the Minister launched the initiative at the London borough of Camden open day, reference was made to the possibility of teams supporting bids for additional resources for housing benefit units in local authorities. How much scope will there be for that? Dare I say that that may further encourage local authorities to participate in the scheme?
The fourth issue has been touched on by several hon. Members today. The Minister knows that I have raised the single-room rent restriction at the Committee stages of legislation in the House, and I remain concerned that we are not moving as far as we should. The Committee recommended that the restriction should be scrapped because it undoubtedly causes a great deal of difficulty for the under-25s, especially in high-cost areas. The restriction applies to the lower end of the market and excludes properties that have their own toilet, kitchen and living room. It must exclude an awful lot of housing. It would seem that one would have to be living in a tent before the single-room rent restriction applied.
The single-room rent restriction causes hardship and homelessness, and it is time that the Government embraced the need to do away with a nasty change to the rules made by the previous Government, and which the current Government should have reversed by now. We approach the end of the Government's term of office, and it behoves them to outline when we will see an end to that set of restrictions. The cost of returning to the previous position would be 0.25 per cent. of the housing benefit budget. Although that is not a significant cost, it would make a significant difference to the lives of a great many people.
Housing benefit problems are not simply matters for local government. It is easy to take pot shots at local councils for not delivering the system that we would like. It is our responsibility, and ultimately the responsibility of the Government to remember that the rules that are set and the methods that are employed can either contribute to or hamper the way in which local government delivers the benefit. Reference has been made to local public service agreements in respect of housing benefit as a way of strengthening and deepening the partnership between local and central Government. Will such an approach be taken, and if so, on what time scale?
The fundamental reform called for in the report is a long way down the track. It will be fully implemented in seven to 10 years. During the intervening period, it will be necessary to rely on a succession of fine-tuning adjustments and tweaks to the existing system. The weaknesses of that system will keep people in areas of high housing cost, and they will be trapped on benefit and in dependency, instead of being able to get back into work. During that period, people will face, at best,

333WH
doubt about their housing, and at worst debt, eviction and the stigma of losing credit ratings and all that that entails.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is correct: there will not be a big bang. There will be a long, slow fizzle over a seven to 10—year period. I hope that the Minister will say that a fundamental reform of the system, which guarantees housing for people who need it, will be implemented sooner rather than later. That would be a cause for celebration.
4.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: As I was reading the Select Committee report, I was reminded of the size of the housing benefit budget. It is the largest single support for low-income tenants. It amounts to 12 per cent. of the social security budget, or 1 per cent. of GDP. It is a massive annual budget, and it is the most complex.
Table 1 of the report describes the estimated and outturn housing benefit expenditure. It shows that the Government have restrained expenditure in the past few years, from an underspend of £470 million in 1997–98 to an underspend of £1,700 million in 1999–2000. Those savings have occurred for several reasons, and they will continue. The claimant count has been reduced to below 1 million, which is a Government success, as is the introduction of the working families tax credit, which has had an impact on housing benefit. There has also been much comment on the verification framework and the rent restrictions that were introduced by the previous Government in 1996.
The present Government's success in restraining expenditure allows for flexibility under the budget. It also gives scope to implement short-term changes in anticipation of the longer-term changes that the Minister mentioned, which will be delivered in seven to 10 years.
Such matters should be examined in terms of overall Government strategy in this policy area. Their priorities are to reduce poverty, to restrain increases in the social security budget—and there is not necessarily a contradiction between those aims—and to make work pay. In that context, there are three important issues concerning housing benefit, on which hon. Members have commented. The first is simplification, which is crucial because housing benefit is complex. The second is work incentives: if they are to achieve their aims, housing benefit must be reformed. The third is administration, which is causing great concern at present.
In the Green Paper, the Government highlighted the fact that simplification is one of their priorities. I have several suggestions to make about that. First, all changes to people's incomes, however small, immediately lead to a redetermination, which clogs up the system. I understand that the Government have been examining the possibility of a 12-month fixed period for pensioners. The suggestion of a six-month fixed period for working tenants has much merit, as it would bring things into line with the working families tax credit. However, if we intend to introduce a fixed period, safeguards must be provided for people whose
334WH
circumstances change so as to reduce their income and, perhaps, place them in difficulty. With the proviso that safeguards must be provided, that would be one way of improving or simplifying the benefit.
A second approach relates to non-dependant deductions. The Select Committee report refers to the six different rates that currently apply, and suggests abolishing the higher ones. Some people have called for a limit on deductions, perhaps up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the rent, and some have called for abolition, which I understand would cost about £230 million. That would be the wrong approach, but we should consider limiting non-dependant deductions, and we should restrain future increases, which have resulted in problems and increasing complexity. It would be sensible to restrain increases, perhaps to the rate of inflation of the rate of increase in wealth in the country. That would help simplify the administration of housing benefit.
The third approach relates to rent restrictions, which create complexity and, sadly, as has been attested to by every hon. Member this afternoon, increase hardship. I could cite many examples, but we need only refer to the research carried out by the Government on single-room rent and local reference rents to know the hardship that has been created. I am well aware from the Green Paper and the response that the Government are seriously considering reforming single-room rents. They should reconsider the matter.
Controversy surrounds the cost of abolishing single-room rents. Shelter's estimate is considerably different from the Government's. I understand that changes such as behavioural effects must be taken into account, but will the Minister discuss the Government's thoughts on single-room rents and the likely consequences of a radical change or of abolition?
I could cite lots of statistics on local reference rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and others have already eloquently discussed the impact that such rent is having in their locality. It is contributing massively to a drying-up of tenancies for low-income people in all our constituencies, and especially in high-rent areas. Hurdles are now being introduced, such as the requirement for a high deposit before people can access a tenancy, which is as much of an exclusion as not allowing someone to take up a tenancy.
It is a fiction to believe that in areas such as London, where demand is high, tenants can negotiate with their landlord a limited reduction in rent. The reality is that tenants do not have a genuine choice in Greater London and other high-rent areas, as evidence from Shelter and other housing organisations and, indeed, the Government attests.
Most organisations active in the field suggest a Government review of local reference rents, which urgently needs to be undertaken. Such rent has had a dramatic impact on low-income tenants, and reform is on the cards.
Work incentives are, rightly, a high Government priority, but the interaction between housing benefit and earnings and other income is complex. It is certainly not an aspect that I understand well. Housing benefit is also poorly integrated because it is difficult to reform in any radical way; the Minister commented on that several times this afternoon.

335WH
I understand the problem with rents. They do not have the necessary coherence and they are certainly not fair across the country. The seven to 10-year time scale that we are talking about to reform rents in this country is too long if we are to deliver a change in housing benefit that will assist those who are most in need in high-rent areas such as my own.
Angela Eagle: When I was asked about the likely time scales for the radical restructuring of housing benefit—in other words, the introduction of flat-rate benefits that was mentioned in the Green Paper—I said seven to 10 years because there is no point in going ahead before we have a coherent rent structure. People cannot be expected to trade down, if that costs more because rents are all over the place. I did not mean that we would not make any changes to housing benefit in the interim. I said earlier that the tax credit agenda forces us to look at the structure of housing benefit and how it integrates with tax credits.
Mr. Love: I am pleased to hear that. I shall talk about the tax credit agenda later. I am well aware of the comments that were made in the summary of the Green Paper. I should first like to refer to earnings disregards, which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned. There has not been a change since 1988. The cost of restoring earnings disregards to the figures for 2000 would be roughly £35 million to £40 million. That is a relatively limited sum. It could be done in other ways. The earnings disregard is a simple change. It is easy for those who implement it and those who receive it to understand. It does not add anything to the complexity of housing benefit but, perhaps most important, those who have benefited least from the introduction of the working families tax credit and who also receive housing benefit would gain the most from such a change.
The next area that I should like to focus on is greater reform of housing support, which was mentioned in the summary of the Green Paper. The Minister talked about looking at a flat-rate element as a possible way forward. Because of the high combined marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates, it is extremely difficult in current circumstances to introduce a taper that would make a significant difference or would not have the effect of extending withdrawal to a massive range of income. After the introduction of the working families tax credit, 200,000 families in this country still experience withdrawal rates greater than 80 per cent. In other words, the difficulty of amalgamating the current housing benefit scheme with the working families tax credit has been enormous.
A number of organisations, including Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing, have therefore suggested the possibility of some form of tax credit. I do not know whether that is what the Minister was referring to when she spoke about a flat-rate element. One of the advantages would be that, if it were introduced as part of the working families tax credit, it would take a large number of people and families out of the poverty trap. I accept that there will be winners and losers in any of the changes that are introduced, and perhaps a cost to the Exchequer. Looking at the Minister, I am sure that the Government have pored over the problem for many months. It is worth further
336WH
consideration, however, because people on the lowest incomes are very badly affected by the current interaction between housing benefit and the new tax credits—and the problem may get worse as the tax credit scheme is developed over the next couple of years.
Hon. Members have already spoken about administration. I am aware of the pleasing charter marks received by the London borough of Camden for its housing benefit administration. Sadly, not many others in Greater London or the rest of the country have received similar awards. The picture is extremely bleak.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) spoke about the decline in response rates when housing benefit is claimed. A response is supposed to be made in 14 days. We know that that target is not achieved, but do we know how badly the response rate has declined? Statistics from Shelter suggest that, in 1997–98, 79 per cent. of recipients received their benefit within 14 days, but by 1999–2000 the figure had dropped to 67 per cent. We are witnessing an overall decline in administrative standards, which must be dealt with urgently. I was pleased that the Minister highlighted that problem in her response. It featured prominently in consultation and the Government have taken it into account.
Some important issues arise from the Select Committee report and from the comments of housing organisations that are directly affected by the administration. Local authorities have received an increase in support, but because of the additional burdens it must continue to increase. Extra support should, however, be linked to proper training of local authority staff, and performance must meet the Government's targets. Performance service agreements could be a way forward and are being actively discussed. We should focus on local authorities with the worst record. It is nice to talk about Camden, but there are far more authorities with a bad than a good record.
Most controversially—my background is in local government and I know how unwelcome this will be—the Government should assume more powers to require local authorities to get involved in the changes that we want to promote. When local authorities start to get it right, it will greatly benefit their local populations.
My final point is about fraud and error. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have scrutinised the matter in detail. We must get the methodology right. We have not got it right in the past because of confusion between fraud and error. Complexity is another problem. We must sort out the difference between "confirmed fraud" and "suspected fraud" before we bandy figures about. It has become a party political issue and is likely to become an election issue. The argument is based on the flimsiest of evidence at the moment.
The Public Accounts Committee was told that, under the present complex income support system, 10 per cent. of adjudications will always be wrong. That applies equally to housing benefit. Unless we simplify the system, it will be difficult to eliminate fraud or, more especially, error. I am sympathetic to the aims of the verification framework, but we must recognise its partly negative impact. It is slowing down the process, which cannot be good for anyone, and the most vulnerable customers are reacting badly to it. We may be deterring people from making legitimate claims.

337WH
The relationship between registered social landlords and local authorities and others is also deteriorating. Landlords are taking advantage of their tenants in an effort to get local authorities to improve the system. Much has to be done.
I hope that the Minister responds to all the pertinent concerns expressed by hon. Members of all parties. I accept her estimate that it will take seven to 10 years to achieve radical reform of housing benefit, but we cannot stand still. We need to move forward and help the most vulnerable in our society. Some of the changes suggested in the report and in our discussion will help to achieve that.
5 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I will be brief. I apologise to members of the Committee for having stood up from time to time—and thank you, Mr. Hood, for having allowed me to do so. I am sure that anyone who has had an attack of sciatica will sympathise with me.
I congratulate the Select Committee. One always expects a high-quality report from Select Committees and this report is indeed high quality and thought provoking—so much so that it probably had the good effect of provoking the Government into producing their Green Paper. There has been much agreement among hon. Members in their analysis of the problems facing the housing benefit system. I am an outer-London Member and I join hon. Members representing inner London in reporting problems with the administration of housing benefit. The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) pointed out that there had been some 300 DSS circulars and 85 new regulations since May 1997. I have slightly different figures, but all those changes cannot have helped lessen the complexity of the system.
I was glad to hear from the Minister that a standard form—I see that she has a copy—has been sent to local authorities, which they have been encouraged to use. I would be most interested to know how many of them had indicated that they had taken it up. It might be a bit early to get a return on that. I do not know whether she is planning any sanctions if they do not use the form, but I encourage them to do so. As we all know, at the moment, there is a different form for every local authority. As I said, I too have experienced administrative problems.
Capita are the people who look after housing benefit in Bromley. Like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), last summer was a fairly gruesome time for me in my surgeries and I received letters from people who were having enormous difficulty. I came to a slightly different conclusion on the matter to Opposition Members, but like the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I suspect that the contract is at fault. The problem reminds me of early contracts for, dare I say, grass cutting which tended to specify that grass must be cut twice a week rather than saying that it must be kept to a certain length and the grass cuttings swept up; in August the grass needs to be cut only once a fortnight whereas in May it has to be cut more often. The text of the contract is often
338WH
the core of the problem, which was the conclusion to which I came in my discussions with Bromley about the difficult situation with Capita.
I confess, as could other people, that in working with the various housing associations in Bromley we have tacitly adopted a system that helps alleviate the problem. As soon as a piece of paper turns up with the portcullis on it—surprise, surprise, things are fixed. It is of great sadness to me that so many people with so many different problems, across the spectrum and not just in housing benefit, have to rely on that piece of paper before anyone takes them seriously. That is perhaps one of our advantages as Members of Parliament, but it is sad that systems work like that.
Some hon. Members have said that housing benefit should be centralised and brought into the DSS or tax credit system. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view. We need to consider carefully whether it is advisable to go down that road. Do we want local authorities to be no longer involved in housing benefit? If that is a conscious political decision, we can probably have a good political argument about it, but I should not like it to emerge as the way forward without our having had a thorough discussion about the role of local authorities.
Interestingly, one issue that has not been discussed is the effect on the housing benefit budget of the reduction in unemployment. A number of people have talked, rightly, about the read-across from housing benefit into the working families tax credit. Several people have come to my surgery because they are having difficulties with the working families tax credit and the rigid six-month rule used by the Inland Revenue, which is not proving as flexible as perhaps it needs to be when there are changes of circumstance. I have had constituents who, through no fault of their own, have suddenly had to repay six months' worth of working families tax credit. That can make as big a hole in their finances as not receiving housing benefit and then being pursued for arrears. We need therefore to consider the interaction between working families tax credit and housing benefit, the tapers and administration. We also need to consider whether it is a good idea to go down a straight six-month route or whether any fixed period of time is the most effective way of delivering housing benefit to those who need it.
There has been some discussion of fraud, but I am mildly surprised that no one has talked about the Social Security Fraud Bill, which will have its Second Reading in a couple of weeks. Some of the measures in it are designed, as I understand it, to reduce fraud in the social security system, which includes housing benefit. As the Minister will know, there were constructive discussions in the other place, and many of the concerns about fraud were taken on board. I look forward to further discussions to ensure that the Bill is as effective as possible at minimising fraud.
Apart from simplifying the administration of housing benefit, we need to consider how we can encourage best practice. It is not just a question of being able to use the standard form; local authorities should be encouraged to talk to one another and adopt best practice. We also need to consider whether we can move down the route of simplifying regulations, which everyone agrees is needed. We could annualise them, so that at one point in the year—perhaps 5 April, to coincide with the tax

339WH
year—the changes in the year's housing benefit come in as one piece rather than as a constant dribble of changes that cause administrative hassle every time.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) talked about the need to eliminate errors and complex regulations from the system. Errors, delays and complex regulations have certainly created a situation in which those who wish to defraud the system can flourish. Those problems need to be removed from the system, so that those who are behaving fraudulently find it more difficult to do so.
I do not know about the situation in other hon. Members' constituencies, but we have a number of people in Bromley who, perhaps because their children have left home, would like to downsize. They find it difficult to do so and the housing benefit system does not help them. Perhaps a way forward could be found by sharing with them any savings to be gained from moving downwards in terms of property size. People can manage a smaller house or flat more easily than a large one.
With those few words and queries to the Minister, I have broadly set out our views on a good report, and I hope that there is sufficient time for her to answer the questions that have been asked.
5.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I am not sure that there will be sufficient time to answer all questions in great detail because, as we know, housing benefit is complex to debate in public policy terms and, more crucially, in administrative terms. If any benefit is likely to fail in delivering help, it is housing benefit because it has been so complex to administer since its creation. Its management and administration was fragmented to form 409 local authorities, so the primary legal responsibility for administering and delivering housing benefit now falls to local authorities.
As the Minister in Whitehall who is responsible for housing benefit, I have limited powers to cajole local authorities into following certain policies. We can make things compulsory, but it is not always possible, when one is sat at the centre, to realise the effect of doing that in every one of the 409 authorities. As we know, there are large authorities with big housing benefit case loads, tiny ones with small case loads, and everything in between. We must look at the administrative doability of the suggestions that we come up with. The debate has been a good one but, as always, it has been much easier to analyse what is wrong with housing benefit than either to design a brand spanking new system to solve all our problems or to come up with deliverable changes that would work on the ground.
That is not to say that we will not make changes, but there is a tension between having too much upheaval, and the widely shared view that change is necessary. We have heard complaints today about too many changes, a plea for radical and urgent reform and one for stability. That encompasses the tensions that I have to deal with, day in day out, when I examine the problems of housing benefit. We must have a balance between change and stability, especially when the entire welfare structure is changing.
People say, rightly, that there have been many circulars, and we are looking at how we can brigade them more effectively. The Conservative party
340WH
suggested that we have one day per year for change, but what would be done with upratings, the introduction of joint claiming for the jobseeker's allowance and other changes? It would be difficult to arrange everything that impacts on the housing benefit system from different Departments to change on one day. In some ways, it would be simpler, but it would be a big bang in the year and it would make it harder to change housing benefit quickly, because we would have to wait for the change date.
There would be practical difficulties in having one mega-circular that appeared on 1 April rather than a string of them through the year. Some circulars, for example, inform local authorities of the new telephone number of an official who has moved job. They are counted in the official numbers, but do not cause huge administrative problems. Others make beneficial changes that the Social Security Committee would support; presumably, they are not the ones that are causing the complaints. I agree that there is an issue, and we are trying to make the production and distribution of the circulars timely, more predictable and easier to deal with from a local authority's point of view, particularly when benefit changes or redesigns involve computer reprogramming. When that happens, it can be difficult for local authorities.
Many of the hon. Members who spoke pointed out that delivery and administration of housing benefit throughout the country are patchy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has the good fortune to represent one of the authorities that does it extremely well. Other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) do not have that good fortune. I will say no more about that.
We want to find out why those variations exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate pointed out, in places that are close geographically and that share similar social structures, demands and issues. We have noticed that, if local authorities think that housing benefit is important and give it priority at both officer and member level, it tends to be better. In many authorities, housing benefit is off at the side, something on which people do not focus. As with anything, if those who work in it and those who are responsible for administering it give it priority, it tends to be better done. Clearly, we need to raise the priority of housing benefit in those areas where it is not given priority.
We have moved from the laissez-faire system of administration that we inherited—409 authorities that were largely left alone—to one that is more prescriptive and demands higher standards. We are asking for changes to be made, not only because of welfare changes, but because we want to tackle fraud and to drive up the standards of administration. Those changes have been a shock in some areas. There has been a gap—I will put this gently—between what some authorities have been doing as standard practice and what the law says that they actually should be doing. To some extent, the verification framework has pointed out such discrepancies. In a benefit where there is a rent test and a means test, it is expected that the means test will be done. When the verification framework was put into effect in some local authorities, we discovered that people were simply taken at their word for the means test. When

341WH
claimants are told that they will have to confirm what is in their bank account, the process inevitably takes longer. By securing the gateways, delivery of the benefit will be slowed up in some instances but, once through those periods, administration will be more effective and harder to defraud.
I am not complacent about some of the difficult effects that the changes have caused—we heard them eloquently described today—in the lives of individual claimants. It is unacceptable that administrative failings, whether by an outsourced company or a local authority, are visited upon claimants. In many ways, the claimants are used, piggy in the middle, by landlords who say, "If I issue a notice for eviction, perhaps they will pay faster and I will get to the front of the backlog queue." I have constituents who have been treated in that manner. That is not an acceptable standard practice. It is not acceptable that claimants' security and peace of mind is affected in such a manner. I condemn that.
We are working on a new partnership with local authorities to try to improve housing benefit administration. We have a responsibility to improve the design of the scheme and its delivery. We began that with some of the administration changes that were announced in the aftermath of the Green Paper, particularly the help teams that are now available. The announcement of extra resources for administration—for the first time since 1993—is for three years; local authorities can make plans knowing what their funding will be.
We must also ask why some local authorities do a good job and how we can spread best practice. Best value itself will achieve some of that. The benefit fraud inspectorate, although it is not fantastically loved, is producing reports that demonstrate what works and what does not and where things need to be tightened up. The inspectorate has led us in its investigations to produce the form. It does not look much, but it is a template of a housing benefit claim form. It is 20 pages long, but it is easy to read and to fill in. It passes all verification framework standards.
I do not know whether hon. Members have read some of the current housing benefit forms. At present, local authorities produce their own. The forms range from pretty good—Camden, again—to absolutely atrocious. It may not seem important, but I regard it as such. The template has been made available to all local authorities. We are translating it into the 12 ethnic minority languages, which will save a lot of local translation costs and problems. We will also make that available. It is too early to say how many local authorities will use it, but I cannot force them to do so.
Mr. Corbyn: That is exactly my point. I realise that the Minister cannot force local authorities to use the form, but as housing benefit is a national benefit that is paid by local authorities, surely there should be scope to put more pressure on them to produce identical forms. There is no basis for local variations.
Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that local authorities will consider how they can make use of
342WH
the form. All the artwork is available. They can just send the form to the printers when they run out of their current forms. I hope that the template will be used widely. We shall see. Clearly, we shall decide whether we should set out other such proposals in the light of the popularity of the form.
I wish to deal with rent restrictions. The single-room rent definition is being widened. We have consulted on the new definitions which involve shared-room rents. Such properties exist in the market and the regulations will be on their way to the Social Security Advisory Committee—if they are not there already. We hope that they will be in force soon. We are considering June or July for implementation, although local authorities consider that that period is quite tight. The changes to the single-room rent restriction will not abolish it. They will ease the difficulty, and we are trying to get the changes on to the statute book as soon as possible.
We are also introducing regulations that will change the nature of the discretionary housing scheme, something that the Social Security Committee was particularly interested in when I gave evidence to it. It will make the scheme discretionary at a much more local level. It will make it clear that exceptional hardship is not what some local authorities considered it was, but is largely within the bounds of the definition. The scheme will be much more discretionary.
However, as I said to the Social Security Committee, we will be creating a system whereby if local authorities do not spend the money given to them for discretionary housing awards on a year-to-year basis, we will take it back off them. There will be no incentive for them not to spend the money in the new scheme whereas there was in the old discretionary payment scheme. We are hoping that the change will be implemented alongside that on the single-room rent. As we speak, big changes are happening in connection with the move from housing benefit appeal boards. There will be an independent right of appeal to the Appeals Service. I accept that that is a big work load for local authorities. In the next few months, they will have their work cut out dealing with such issues.
I was interested that the Conservative party's proposal to create one day for circulars to come in would save £250 million.
Mrs. Lait: We are not suggesting that there should be just one day when all circulars arrive in a great thump from the Department, but as happens with social security benefit upratings, we want the changes to housing benefit to happen on one day.
Angela Eagle: That is fine, but I am still not sure how £250 million will be saved by cutting error and overpayment. I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about nationalising housing benefit and bringing it back within the control of the Benefits Agency.
Mrs. Lait: Centralising.
Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady says centralising. Well, we considered the matter and concluded for several reasons that it would not be a good idea in the current circumstances. First, there is a huge change under way at the Department of Social Security, so such a

343WH
proposal could not probably be accommodated even if we wanted to do it. Secondly, announcing that we would bring in such a change, but being unable to do it for a long time would blight the administration of housing benefit when it is important to drive up the standard of that administration. Thirdly, such a proposal would probably cost a great deal of money.
Mrs. Lait: My point, which I probably did not make clearly enough, was that underlying other people's comments was the centralisation of housing benefit. I was not suggesting it. I was merely pointing out that such a suggestion had been implied by others.
Angela Eagle: Yes, but the Conservative party is suggesting that housing benefit administration be taken away from the worst performing councils—I do not know how that would be defined—and moved to the Benefits Agency. It says that that would save £40 million, but I do not understand how.
I want to end the use of the argument, "Oh, it's their fault. It is nothing to do with us. It is the Government's fault," about housing benefit administration and to work in partnership with local authorities to drive up standards. We want to be helpful by providing the nationally designed claim form, more money, the help teams and by working closely to solve administrative problems. That is the best way forward rather than saying that, at some time in the future, we may take administration away.
We are also taking other action to help on a day-by-day basis. I keep referring to remote access terminals—RATs—when discussing housing benefits. They give a window on the Benefits Agency systems. We are developing the integrated inquiry service, which is a super-RAT with batteries. It enables local authorities to have a wider look at our systems. The fraud Bill will enable much more joint fraud working, such as the national fraud hotline. There will be more ability to swap and check information to ensure that housing benefit claims are put into place much faster. We hope that we can develop a single claims process for some
344WH
linked benefits, such as housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance and income support. Those are some of our ambitions.
Ms Buck: I am aware that my hon. Friend is coming to the end of her remarks, but will she respond to the proposals about rent restrictions from the private tenants and landlords group and comment on the review of the mechanism for establishing local reference rents?
Angela Eagle: It is probably best if I write to my hon. Friend about that, given the amount of time that we have left. Although it is not my ministerial responsibility, it is important to note that the rent service has undergone some changes to centralise it recently. Clearly, it is beginning to look at how the system can be organised reasonably. We would not rule out considering the local reference rent, but changing it is not a priority at the moment. We need to ensure that the rent service and the rent officer service are as efficient and effective as they can be in all localities. I shall reply to the representations made by the organisations to which she referred.
Getting housing benefit right is extremely important. We are considering carefully fixed-term awards, particularly for pensioners, to see whether we can remove much of the senseless administration that surrounds them. I hope that an announcement will be made shortly. We are also considering the working age and how housing benefits take away the incentive to work. The solutions in that regard are different from those in respect of people of pensionable age. That is why we believe that disaggregating the DSS, so that we have a working age agency and a pensions directorate, will provide some solutions to the different needs of housing benefit recipients.
There is a lot of work to do. We are not complacent about the problems that exist. We welcome the Social Security Committee's report and I personally welcome the debate that we have had today. I am sure that such debates will continue. We want to work together in partnership to get such an extremely important benefit right.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152789]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The headline pay settlement was 2.5 per cent. on the pay bill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4.4 per cent.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a requirement on manufacturers of television sets to include digital receivers in new sets. [153261]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 14 February 2001, Official Report, column 137W.

  Small Business Service
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support he is giving to enterprise clubs following the establishment of the new Small Business Service, with particular reference to Greater London. [153782]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is committed to supporting enterprise, including clubs and disadvantaged areas across the whole of London and other regions, through a number of initiatives. These include:500 volunteer business mentors already appointed with a further 500 to be in place by April 2001;
  The Phoenix Fund, which will help people from disadvantaged groups and in deprived areas who wish to start up or expand a business, of £30 million for this financial year; London's funding allocation is £4.1 million;
  A £12 million Development Fund to support innovative enterprise;
  The Small Firms Loans Guarantee Scheme to help small firms with a viable business proposal, but who are unable to obtain conventional bank finance because they lack security or a business track record;
  Regional Venture Capital funds providing equity finance for start-up or early-stage businesses with growth potential, but remaining subject to approval by the European Commission that they do not infringe state aid rules;
  A UK High Technology Fund for early-stage high technology businesses;
  Support for the National Business Angels Network to increase the flow of informal investment finance.
  668W
  Through its Regional Manager for London, SBS will work closely with the Business Link and London Development Agency to ensure that the region as a whole, including Inner and Greater London, has access to the necessary enterprise funding and that this is used cost-effectively for the capital's various enterprise organisations and their initiatives.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received on the draft European standard for air conditioning equipment (EN 378); and if he will make a statement; [153619]

  (2) on what date he proposes to withdraw the British Standard in respect of air conditioning equipment; and if he will make a statement on the regulation that will replace it; [153620]

  (3) what representations he has received, and from which bodies, supporting the withdrawal of the British Standard for air conditioning equipment; [153621]

  (4) what representations he has received on the continued use of hydrocarbons in air conditioning equipment; and if he will make a statement. [153623]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  EN 378 is a technical specification for refrigerating systems and heat pumps (which can be used in some air conditioning equipment), dealing with the safety and environmental aspects. The standard allows for hydrocarbons, which are flammable, being used as a refrigerant in certain circumstances instead of the usual hydrofluorocarbons, which are inert.

  My Department received just one representation concerning the use of hydrocarbons as a refrigerant being included in this standard. However, responsibility for this standard, and resolving any technical issues concerned including safety ones, falls to the British Standards Institution (BSI), which is independent of Government.

  BSI is the United Kingdom member of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) which developed the European standard EN 378. It carries out, as part of its normal procedures, public consultations on draft ENs. Once a draft EN is adopted by CEN, the national standards bodies who are its members withdraw any conflicting national standards and publish the European one. In this instance, I understand that EN 378 was adopted by CEN last year and then published by BSI as BS EN 378.

  Any technical questions relating to, or issues of interpretation of, the standard should therefore be taken up with BSI.

  Import/Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide details of the import licences granted for the import of(a) tear gas, (b) plastic baton rounds and (c) other riot control munitions into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic since 1997. [153515]
  669W
  Mr. Caborn
  There have been no individual import licences issued in respect of tear gas sprays and canisters (including CS gas) for import into the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) from the Irish Republic since 1997.

  Imports of plastic baton rounds do not require an individual import licence. The transfer of these items is subject to the issue of a transfer document by the designated authority in the Irish Republic.

  Seven licences have been issued for the importation into the United Kingdom from an EU member state for products that might fit the description "other riot control munitions". None of the licence holders is based in Northern Ireland.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide details of the export licences granted for export of military list, paramilitary list and dual use technologies to the Irish Republic in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, where the end-use destination was for another country. [153514]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2000, one Standard Individual Export Licence was issued where the consignee was in the Irish Republic and the end-use destination was in another country. This covered goods controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the Military List) and rated ML6. ML6 covers ground vehicles and components thereof specifically designed or modified for military use. There were no such licences issued in 1999.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the British Government issued an export licence to Royal Ordinance for the refurbishment of 30 105mm Moroccan guns in Western Sahara; who approved the export licence application for the refurbishment of 105mm Moroccan guns in Western Sahara; if Royal Ordinance (BAE Systems) completed the refurbishment of 105mm Moroccan guns in Western Sahara; what export licences have been approved for weapons or spares in Western Sahara since 1997; what export licence applications have been refused to Morocco since 1997; on what grounds they were refused; on what occasions the United Nations has been consulted about approving export licence applications to Morocco since 1997; and if the terms of the UN Peace Plan take primacy over the EU Code of Conduct for approving export licence applications to Morocco. [150250]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: On 12 July 1999 the DTI issued a standard individual export licence to Royal Ordnance to export equipment to Morocco for the refurbishment of guns. The licence was reported in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls.

  All licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.
  670W
  While in general the ECO maintains records of licence applications, it does not in general compile records of actual shipments. Moreover, where the licence is for refurbishment, ECO does not monitor whether the refurbishment has been carried out.

  The export of weapons and weapons spares are controlled under entries ML1, ML2, ML4, ML5, ML12, ML18, ML19, ML21, ML22, PL5002, PL5006, PL5017, PL5018 and PL5030 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the EG(C)O). The entry in the EG(C)O under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. 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 copies of which are in the Library of the House. These Reports list by country of destination the export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and gives details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted. They also set out the value of defence exports to each country.

  Between 1 January 2000 and 2 February 2001, six Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and three Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Morocco of goods with the relevant ratings. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 2000 and 2 February 2001 covering the export to Morocco of goods on the Military List1

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OfELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  3

  0

  ML2

  4

  0

  ML4

  1

  0

  ML5

  0

  2

  ML12

  0

  0

  ML18

  0

  0

  ML19

  0

  0

  ML21

  0

  0

  ML22

  1

  1

  PL5002

  0

  0

  PL5006

  1

  0

  PL5017

  1

  1

  PL5018

  0

  0

  PL5030

  0

  0

  1 Each licence may cover a range of ratings, and where this is so, data on them are included under each of the relevant ratings.

  In addition, Morocco is a permitted destination on certain Open Genoral Export Licences for the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Library of the House.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 only one application, for the refurbishment of 105mm guns and supply of new guns, was refused to Morocco, on the grounds that issuing the licence would contravene Criterion 4 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. After the company appealed, the part of the application for the refurbishment of guns was granted. However the refusal of the part of the licence application in respect of the proposed sale of new guns was upheld.
  671W
  Between 1 January 2000 and 2 February 2001, no applications for a SIEL and no applications for an OIEL were refused covering the export to consignees or end-users in Morocco of goods with the relevant ratings.

  HMG does not seek UN approval when issuing export licences to non-embargoed destinations. There is no UN arms embargo on Morocco. HMG did not therefore seek UN approval in this case. However, where the UN has an interest in a region HMG may—as was done in this case—consult the UN. The information provided by the UN will be taken into account by HMG when deciding whether to issue an export licence.

  The terms of the UN Peace Plan do not take primacy over the EU Code of Conduct for approving export licence applications to Morocco. All export licence applications whether for Morocco or elsewhere are considered against the now consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of post offices in the north-west region in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d)2000 and (e) 2001. [153156]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the information is not held in the form requested.

  Chemicals Weapons Act
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the operation of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. [154272]

  Dr. Howells
  In accordance with the Act, I have placed a report on its implementation during 2000 in the Library of each House.

  Satellite Communications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding he expect; to be required to maintain the satellite communication monitoring facility at Baldock. [154184]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Radio Monitoring Station at Baldock in Hertfordshire which is operated by the Radiocommunications Agency has facilities in place in order to be able to monitor a wide range of frequencies over the range from 9 kilohertz through to 40 gigahertz, including those given over to satellite communications.

  The Agency's Corporate Plan for the next five years includes the objective of enhancing existing spectrum monitoring activities through the purchase of further unattended and fixed monitoring systems. Provision in excess of £2,000,000 has been made for these capital projects for each of the next four years.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he taking to ensure that the United Kingdom will continue to be able to monitor those radio frequencies given over to satellite communications. [154183]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Radiocommunications Agency has facilities, based at the Radio Monitoring Station at Baldock in Hertfordshire, which enable it to undertake 672W
  calibrated measurements over the frequency range from 9 kilohertz to 40 gigahertz, including those given over to satellite communications.

  In addition, the Agency is working together with its European counterparts in order to provide common access to enhanced fixed facilities managed centrally by the European Radio Office.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his estimate is of the cost to industry of introducing half-hourly gas balancing. [152825]

  Mr. Hain
  The introduction of a new gas balancing system is a matter for Ofgem.

  Ofgem are currently consulting on proposals to change to hourly or half hourly balancing. Copies of the consultation document can be found on the Ofgem website at: www.ofgem.gov.uk.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many vacancies for staff Ofgem has; and if he will list the salary levels that are being offered for these posts. [152956]

  Mr. Hain
  Ofgem has 22 staff vacancies at the following salary levels:

  Salary level

  Number of vacancies

  £16,000

  1

  £17,000

  3

  £19,211

  6

  £20,000

  1

  £24,250

  5

  £35,000

  2

  £39,000

  2

  £40,000

  1

  £90,000–110,000

  1

  Beckman Case (ECJ)
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Beckman case in the European Court of Justice will be heard; and if he will honour the original redundancy entitlements of the Department of Trade and Industry staff concerned. [153592]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]I am expecting the case to be heard by the European Court of Justice later this year. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further while the case is still before the courts.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many sub-post offices with Horizon equipment installed have ceased trading; [R] [153179]

  (2) what the average cost is per sub-post office of the installation of Horizon equipment. [R] [153180]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 8 January 2001, Official Report, column 361W.
  673W
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices closed in(a) January and (b) February; and how many of those that closed in the first three quarters of 2000–01 have reopened. [R] [153252]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernising the post office network, the Post Office has revised its methods of collating and reporting information on the network to supply to the Postal Services Commission. The Post Office has agreed with the Commission a process and format for reporting such information quarterly. Monthly information is not therefore available. Information is not held on the numbers of post offices which closed in the first three quarters of the current financial year have subsequently reopened.

  Triumph Motorcycles Ltd.
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Triumph Motorcycles Ltd. concerning the manufacturing of machines smaller than 750cc; and if he will make a statement. [153780]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Neither Ministerial colleagues nor I have had discussions with Triumph Motorcycles Ltd. on the types or variety of machines they produce, although my officials have contact with the company on a number of issues. Any decision on whether the company adds to its existing range would be a commercial matter for them.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152651]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has incurred no expenditure on its corporate logo since May 1997. Information on expenditure by directorates within the Department on individual logos is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department's agencies have spent £122,320 on logos and associated branding.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the New Electricity Trading Arrangements. [154173]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today agreed to the recommendation of the Chief Executive of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets that the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) should go live on 27 March 2001.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Everything but Arms' Initiative
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with(a) the European Commissioner for
  674W
  Development and (b) her European Union counterparts on (i) recent amendments to the 'Everything but Arms' initiative and (ii) the implications of these proposals for (A) United Kingdom sugar producers and (B) African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar exporters; and if she will make a statement. [153555]

  Clare Short
  The Government have had ongoing discussions with EU member states and the European Commission on the 'Everything but Arms' initiative (EBA), culminating in the adoption of the Presidency compromise to the proposal on 26 February. Central to these discussions w is consideration of the implications of these proposals for both UK sugar producers and ACP sugar exporters.

  In these discussions, I made clear my belief that least developed countries are not in the position to export large amounts of sugar in the short term. Details of the final agreement are such that imports of sugar from LDCs will be limited by quotas until 2006. It is now up to the European Commission to bring forward amendments to its sugar reform proposals to achieve coherence with EBA. But since the main impact of the agreement will be deferred until 2006–09, the short-term implications for UK sugar producers are likely to be modest. The proposals will have a more immediate effect on non-LDC ACP countries who will face increasing displacement of some of their exports. The UK will work with the EU, multilateral and ether donors to ensure that their adjustment needs are fully taken into account in assistance programmes.

DEFENCE

  War Criminals (Bosnia)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the mandate is of SFOR troops with respect to the arrest and detention of war criminals in Bosnia. [153542]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 1996, the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) is mandated to detain persons indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY ) if its forces come into contact with them in the performance of normal activities and the tactical situation permits.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the establishment strength is of(a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variant, (e) AVF 430 variants. (f) Sabre, (g) Striker, (h) Scimitar, (i) Spartan, (j) Sultan, (k) Samaritan and (I) Samson; what percentage of establishment strength in each category are serviceable for immediate m availability; and if he will make a statement. [152461]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2001]I will write to the right lion. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary or State for Defence from what sources his Department acquired depleted uranium(a) materials, (b) components and (c) ammunition after 1992. [153197]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]The Ministry of Defence has made several acquisitions of equipment containing depleted uranium (DU) since 1992.

  Two types of DU-based ammunition are in service with British Forces: the UK manufactured 120 mm anti-armour round and the US manufactured 20 mm RN Phalanx round.

  Phalanx ammunition is sold to the UK via the US Department of Defense (DOD). All of DOD's DU comes from three US Department of Energy (DOE) gaseous diffusion plants: Paducah. Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Portsmouth, Ohio.

  Royal Ordnance, who manufacture the 120 mm anti-armour round, buy their DU from Starmet Corporation who in turn buy it from DOE. They have no practical way of determining exactly where the input material came from. They believe, however, that it was mostly from Paducah, Kentucky. but it was all produced at their plants at Concord and Barnwell in the US.

  In 1998, Royal Hospital Haslar purchased equipment from ADAC Laboratories in which DU is used as a radiation shield. Hercules C-130J aircraft, which use DU as counter-balance weights in their Flight Control System, have been purchased from Lockheed Martin since 1992. In December 1993, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) acquired 2.5 tonnes of DU plate from AEA Technology, Harwell.

  In April 1999, the Defence Radiology Protection Service, part of DERA, acquired 62 kg of DU from Royal Ordnance Speciality Materials, Wolverhampton for corrosion research. Most recently, in January 2001. three 30 mm A-10 rounds were brought back from Kosovo for research purposes.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if test firing of DU shells at the Dundrennan range is exempt from regulation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. [151848]

  Mr. Spellar
  While the Ministry of Defence is formally exempt from Radioactive Substances Act 1993, we follow the principles and spirit of the regulations. Periodic visits to the Dundrennan range are carried out by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which of his Department's test locations in the United Kingdom the firing of depleted uranium projectiles has taken place; how many test firings have been made at each location; what arrangements are in place for the protection and monitoring of people and the environment; and if he will make a statement. [144771]

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines his Department follows when deciding at which depleted uranium munitions may be (a) fired, (b) stored and (c) transported. [144989]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to the replies, 15 January 2001, c. 42–43W, and 9 March 2001, c. 357–8W]It is our policy that, where UK statutory regulations are not applicable to 676W
  MOD establishments, we undertake by agreement with the Government Departments concerned that the principles and spirit of the regulations are to be followed and arrangements introduced which will be, so far as is reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation. However, the Radioactive Substances Act itself does not apply to the Ministry of Defence.

  Nuclear Convoys
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF Wittering care and maintenance of TCHDs will cease. [153729]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is planned that the care and maintenance of Truck Cargo Heavy Duty (TCHD) Mark II vehicles at RAF Wittering will cease by 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is in overall control of TCHD Mark II transports; and which department is in command of TCHD operations. [153728]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 1 April 1999 the Chief of Defence Logistics assumed overall responsibility for nuclear convoy operations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2001,Official Report, columns 736–37W, on Israel, if he will list the responses received by the European Union from the Government of Israel to the demarches, statements and representations listed. [152608]

  Mr. Wilson
  In reply to UK and EU representations the Israeli authorities have sought to justify their policies and actions. They have asserted that the continued closures and the practice of extra judicial killing are necessary for the protection of Israeli lives. We understand the importance of combating terrorism, but these sustained collective punishments radicalise the Palestinian population and fuel violence in the Occupied Territories. They cannot, therefore, achieve their stated purpose. We will press the new Israeli Government to end these practices and, as a specific first step, to resume the payment of revenues withheld from the Palestine Authority. We will also press the Palestinian leadership to restore security co-operation and make every effort in good faith to calm the violence.

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the agenda of his recent discussion with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. [152892]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Commonwealth Secretary-General on 21 February. They discussed the latest political and economic situation in Zimbabwe. They also discussed the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting on 19–20 March and agreed that the situation in Zimbabwe should be addressed by Ministers. They agreed on the importance of sending a Commonwealth team to Zimbabwe and it reporting back to CMAG.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he gave to the EU code of conduct on arms exports in deciding to issue a licence for the refurbishment of Moroccan heavy artillery in occupied Western Sahara. [153672]

  Mr. Wilson
  The export licence application for artillery spare parts to Morocco and the subsequent appeal were judged against the EU code of conduct, as are all export licence applications considered by my Department. The Department of Trade and Industry is the Department responsible for co-ordinating the export licence application process and granting licences. As a part of this process the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides advice to the DTI on individual export licence applications, and any subsequent appeals.

  Balkans
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the supply of components for the repair and maintenance of military DROPS trailers used by the Irish contingent in KFOR. [154447]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are happy to approve an export licence for the supply of goods needed for the repair and maintenance of military DROPS trailers used by the Irish contingent of KFOR. The goods will assist KFOR in the valuable work they are doing reconstructing a peaceful Kosovo.

  The goods appear on the UK's Military List. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1160 (1998) prohibits the sale or supply of arms and related material to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, UNSCR 1244 (1999) provides that the prohibition imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to arms and related material for the use of the international civil and security presences in Kosovo.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Revenue Support Grant

  122.708

  129.420

  133.106

  132.385

  140.039

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  60.753

  62.875

  67.379

  75.386

  72.533

  Housing Investment Programme

  25.998

  5.448

  6.053

  316.411

  421.993

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.305

  4.216

  4.086

  —

  —

  SRB funding (award date)

  56.0

  —

  —

  631.8

  —

  New Deal for Communities Funding (award date)

  —

  —

  —

  754.0

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (award date)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  816.89

  Estate Action

  4.252

  2.371

  3.031

  3.0

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.864

  0.321

  0.624

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.865

  0.531

  0.624

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.981

  1.950

  2.530

  4.136

  8.601

  1 Where known

  2 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  3 Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  4 Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. Hull's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £17.622 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  5 Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Round 4: £6 million awarded for a five-year scheme to address issues of parenting skills, educational aspirations and attainment).

  6 SRB Round 6: Hull had two successful bids: £28.3 million for Hull City Vision's programme to promote urban renaissance and address economic and social decline in targeted areas of Hull and East Riding; and £3.5 million for the Humber Works" programme to establish an Intermediate Labour Market for very long term unemployed and to develop the Voluntary Sector.

  7 Over 10 years

  8 Over 3 years

  Liberia
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in United Nations sanctions in relation to Liberia. [153352]

  Mr. Wilson
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 2001, c. 281–82W]: I would like to correct two textual errors in my answer of 8 March to my hon. Friend.

  The UN Security Council resolution adopted on 7 March imposing mandatory UN sanctions in relation to Liberia was in fact UN Security Council resolution 1343.

  The travel ban imposed by that resolution, which enters into force on 7 May, is on senior members of the Liberian Government and military and their spouses and any other individuals providing financial and military support to armed rebel groups in countries neighbouring Liberia, as designated by the UN Sanctions Committee.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150615]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to Kingston upon Hull local authority in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Hull, North constituency. In most cases it is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  679W

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  £

  Kingston upon Hull1

  M&M Allowance per house

  1997–98

  718.91

  1998–99

  725.23

  1999–2000

  749.02

  2000–01

  789.96

  2001–02

  804.71

  1 Figures are given as allowance per dwelling rather than in global figures because stock reduction in Hull would distort figures and present a false picture.

  European Funding

  £13.4 million in grant was allocated to the Objective 2 Action Plan for Hull for the period 1997–99. An additional £9 million was allocated to the Deep tourist development and Kingswood industrial site development. Over 100 individual projects were supported within these allocations. Among the benefits will be: new employment opportunities; improved small firm survival and productivity; increased skill levels of employed and unemployed people; increased use of IT among small firms and individuals; and increased contribution of disadvantaged communities to their own economic and social development.

  In the period 1997–99, over 25 projects (worth over £1 million in grant) were supported under Objective 3, with the aim of combating long-term unemployment and helping the integration into working life of young people and people exposed to exclusion from the labour market.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  126.001

  133.654

  139.958

  137.515

  145.032

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  64.585

  66.985

  72.276

  81.373

  79.005

  Housing Investment Programme

  6.445

  6.819

  6.780

  18.340

  26.926

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  32.354

  29.230

  27.913

  27.238

  n/k

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.669

  5.748

  5.959

  n/a

  n/a

  SRB Funding

  35.614

  35.927

  38.201

  38.763

  39.650

  New Deal for Communities Funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40.250

  40.050

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3.582

  ERDF Funding

  3.142

  2.201

  0.125

  0.100

  n/k

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.260

  0.351

  1.286

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.425

  0.351

  1.286

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.121

  1.075

  1.575

  4.217

  5.592

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  51.255

  50.362

  50.560

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  50.054

  50.059

  50.082

  n/k

  Capital Challenge

  1.8

  2.377

  0.823

  0

  0

  (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  60.399

  61.118

  60.0001

  0

  0

  1 Where known

  2 This figure does not include the Major Repairs Allowance allocated to the authority which amounts to £18.284 million.

  3 Please note. NDC expenditure is in the East End and Hendon and not in the hon. Members constituency.

  4 1997–98 SRB figures include Round 3 funding for 'Pride in Pennywell'.

  1998–99 SRB figures include Round 4 funding for 'Releasing Potential in Hendon and the East End'.

  1999–00 SRB figures include Round 5 funding for "Focus on Ford and Pallion'.

  2000/01 SRB figures include Round 6 fundirg for 'Regenerating Thorney Close".

  5Figures quoted are the full amounts given to the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive of whom the authority is a partner.

  6Tyne and Wear Fire Brigade also received Capital Challenge Funding. This was spent on the training centre at Barmston Mere, Washington although the whole of Tyne and Wear benefited from the investment.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of rural district council areas he estimates do not have a bus service. [153130]
  680W
  In the first round of the new Objective 3 programme, projects worth over £7 million in grant have been approved for support.

  Major Transport Schemes

  Hedon Road Improvement

  £53 million is being made available for the Hedon Road improvement scheme to improve travel to and from Hull Docks. This will help the development of the Port of Hull and help create jobs and prosperity across the city. Construction works are expected to start in May 2001.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152992]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to the City of Sunderland in 1997 to 2002 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Houghton and Washington, East. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  Mr. Hill
  Information is not collected in the form that would enable a reliable estimate to be made.

  However, the National Travel Survey for 1997–99 showed that in Great Britain as a whole 42 per cent. of households in rural areas were within 13 minutes walk of a bus stop with a service of at least once an hour.

  Home Zones
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the average cost of establishing a home zone. [153577]

  Mr. Hill
  The cost of establishing a home zone will vary greatly with the size of the zone and the extent of works involved. Information from the pilot projects now being monitored suggests that, in very preliminary estimates, it would be reasonable to use an indicative range of £500-£2,000 per household. But the costs of individual schemes could be slightly less or substantially more than these figures. These are early days, and we shall keep the estimates under review in the light of increasing experience.

  A27
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2001, Official Report, column 630W, on the A27, what the aggregated expenditure was on the two schemes between 1 January 1989 and 31 March 1994. [153443]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 15 March 2001:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Keith Hill to reply to your question about the amount spent on work relating to the possible improvements of the A27 Lewes to Polegate and the A27 Polegate bypass between 1 January 1989 and 31 March 1994.
  As John Kerman explained in his letter of 27 February, unfortunately financial records maintained prior to the establishment of the Highways Agency in April 1994 do not allow us to readily identify details of spend on individual schemes. We cannot therefore isolate sufficient information to give you an aggregate figure for spend before that date.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policy he has to implement the proposals in respect of hydrofluorocarbons in "Climate Change: The UK Programme". [153617]

  Mr. Meacher
  Industry was given a clear signal on the continued use of hydrofluorocarbons in the UK Climate Change Programme. Policies and measures taken to implement the proposals outlined in the programme include the development of a new voluntary agreement with the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, the introduction of a mandatory scheme to train and certify refrigerant handlers, and encouragement of the use, where appropriate, of alternative substances.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to discourage the use of hydrofluorocarbons in air conditioning equipment; and if he will make a statement. [153616]

  Mr. Meacher
  Industry was given a clear signal on the continued use of hydrofluorocarbons in the UK Climate Change Programme. Policies and measures taken to implement the proposals outlined in the programme 682W
  include the development of a new voluntary agreement with the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, the introduction of a mandatory scheme to train and certify refrigerant handlers, and encouragement of the use, where appropriate, of alternative substances.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the estimated cost is of administering the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in England in 2000–01; and what the average cost is of administration fore ach grant paid. [153531]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is managed by Eastern HEES Ltd. in the East of England, and by the Eaga Partnership in the rest of England. The two scheme managers are responsible for marketing the scheme to eligible households; carrying out independent surveys of properties; advising and agreeing with householders the most appropriate measures for their home; recruiting heating and insulation contractors through open competition; and managing payments to contractors for work completed.

  The fees paid to the scheme managers consist of a fixed monthly element and a variable amount paid for each household where work has been completed and invoiced. In addition the Department paid start up costs of £2,485,000 in the period between award of contract in March 2000 and the start of the new scheme on 1 June 2000.

  Excluding these one-off costs, the total scheme management costs between 1 June 2000 and 31 March 2001 are estimated to be £18,906,000 (excluding VAT). This is based on the 134,555 households for whom work orders have been placed with installers during the year. This equates to an average cost per household of £141.

  This estimate does not allow for profit clawback clause included within the contract with the Eaga Partnership, and the not-for-profit basis of Eastern HEES. These two factors will reduce the actual fees paid by the Department this year.

  The average cost per household figure reflects the relatively slow start to the scheme during the period June-August 2000. The coming financial year will represent the first full year of operation for the new scheme. The total number of homes improved is expected to increase substantially, thereby reducing the average cost per household.

  Walton Group plc
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on(a) obtaining the return of the £4.4 million grant made to the Walton Group plc in respect of Exchange Flags Liverpool and (b) matters referred to Merseyside Police in respect of this grant. [153546]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Police investigations are still in progress, and therefore I am unable to make any further statement at this time.

  Driving Licences (Pensioners)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the
  683W
  Government have to abolish the payment for driving licence renewals for pensioners aged over 70 years; and if he will make a statement. [153538]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to abolish the three yearly driving licence renewal fee for the over-70s. Fees are required to cover the costs of issuing licences. Abolishing the fee for renewing licences from age 70 would result in an unacceptable level of cross-subsidisation, which would have to be borne by other drivers through the fees they pay.

  The fee was reduced from £8.50 to £ 6.00 in November last year, returning it to its 1992 level. A consultation document issued in February this year proposes a freeze in the over-70s licence renewal fee.

  Environmental Management Policies
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanism the Government plan to put in place to require publicly funded institutions to introduce formal environmental management policies. [153518]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have already put mechanisms in place for requiring Government Departments to establish formal environmental management policies. Details are given in the second annual report of the Green Ministers' Committee, which I chair, with chapter 5 covering the progress that has been made in establishing environmental management systems on the Government estate. A copy is on my Department's website. The Government have not so far put mechanisms in place for requiring local authorities to establish environmental management systems, though we have provided encouragement and are pleased that a number of local authorities have established environmental management systems certified to ISO 14001 and EMAS.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to conclude negotiations on the PPIP for the London Underground. [153947]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last month that he had agreed to work together with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, and with London Underground, on developing mutually acceptable modifications to the Public Private Partnership. Discussions on these modifications are continuing and have made some real progress. If we can reach agreement then the PPP bidden will be asked to submit revised proposals.

  The Government have not, and will not, set an artificial timetable for completion of the PPP. as this would weaken our ability to ensure that it delivers the best deal for London.

  Railtrack plc
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to acquire(a) a stake in and (b) additional powers over Railtrack plc. [153943]
  684W
  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Act 2000 has strengthened the regulation and accountability of Railtrack. The Rail Regulator rigorously enforces Railtrack's network licence obligations and has proposed new licence conditions.

  Ports of Canada Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 276W, if he will assess the role and experience of the Ports of Canada police as a model for the future policing of United Kingdom ports; and if he will make a statement. [153610]

  Mr. Hill
  Yes. As I told my hon. Friend in my letter of 4 January, I am happy to consider any information that he considers relevant to our review of ports police forces.

  A417
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to improve the A417 near Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire. [153748]

  Mr. Hill
  The South West Regional Assembly has endorsed proposals by the Highways Agency to improve the A417 trunk road from Cowley to the Air Balloon roundabout. My Department is considering the proposal along with those from other regions. An announcement will be made in due course as to what schemes will be added to the national trunk road programme.

  Private Hire Vehicles (London)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many private hire vehicles operate in the Greater London area; and how many have registered with the Public Carriage Office to date. [153717]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of vehicles in Greater London currently available to the public for private hirings is estimated at some 40,000 to 60,000; their regulation is a matter for Transport for London.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when operator licensing of private hire vehicles in London will come into effect. [153718]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 28 November 2000.Official Report, column 554W.

  Local Government Act
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make regulations on alternative arrangements for local authorities under section 32 of the Local Government Act 2000. [154264]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft of the Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001.

  It is now for the House to consider this draft. To assist the House, I have placed in the Library and the Vote Office copies of a draft of the guidance on alternative

  685W
  arrangements which we propose to issue to English local authorities if the draft Regulations are approved by the House and the Other Place.

  Home Improvement Agency
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the home improvement agency grant allocations for 2001–02; and what steps he is taking to extend the benefits of agency services into areas where they are not currently available. [154273]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As announced in Spending Review 2000, an extra £1.8 million is being provided in grant for home improvement agencies from 2001–02, bringing the total grant to £8.5 million a year. Local authorities are being notified of their allocations today.

  This money will be provided in each of the next three years, and in 2003–04 it will be ring-fenced within the new Supporting People budget.

  As well as providing additional support for authorities with existing agencies, I am pleased to be able to offer grant to 52 authorities for the first time. This will increase the number of agencies supported by my Department from 183 to 235 and will allow substantially more elderly, disabled and vulnerable people across the country to benefit from the services agencies can provide.

  The authorities being offered grant for the first time are as follows:

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Blaby

  Bromley

  Canterbury

  Castle Point

  Chelmsford

  Chesterfield

  Corby

  Darlington

  Enfield

  Fenland

  Gloucester

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Huntingdonshire

  Kerrier

  Kettering

  Lambeth

  Lichfield

  New Forest

  North East Lincolnshire

  Norwich

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Richmondshire

  Rochdale

  Runnymede

  Rutland

  Salford

  Scarborough

  Sedgemoor

  686W

  Selby

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Slough

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  South Gloucestershire

  South Hams

  South Norfolk

  South Oxfordshire

  Stafford

  Tameside

  Tandridge

  Tendring

  Torbay

  Trafford

  Waverley

  Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Woking.

TREASURY

  Tax Policy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 March 2001,Official Report, columns 295–308, if he will estimate the revenue from a 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax (a) in the first year and (b) in the three subsequent years. [153716]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs which was published in November 2000, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield of abolishing taper relief for the five financial years from 2001–02 and reintroducing indexation and retirement relief. [153714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Consistent with the assumptions of the March 2001 Budget forecast, the net revenue yield from reintroducing indexation and abolishing taper is estimated to be £450 million for the first year, or £400 million if retirement relief were reinstated also, most of which would be received in the following year. Further information in the form requested on the yield for subsequent years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield in(a) the first year and (b) the subsequent three years from a tax of 50 per cent. on (i) gross and (ii) net incomes exceeding £100,000 a year. [153712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave o the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 104W.
  687W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of abolishing taper relief and reintroducing indexation and retirement relief. [154021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 653W.

  Financial Ombudsman Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints have been investigated by the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning(a) independent financial advisers and (b) tied agents in each of the last three years; and what average level of compensation I was awarded in each case. [153736]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Ombudsman Service are carrying out a detailed analysis of their records in order to provide this information. It will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Working Families Tax Credit (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients there have been of Working Families Tax Credit in Islington(a) since its introduction and (b) in the 2000–01 financial year; and what the average amount paid to each recipient was. [153694]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families in Islington in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at May 2000 and August 2000 are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries for those months, copies of which are in the Library. These estimates are based on 5 per cent. samples of awards, and are s abject to sampling error. The publications explain that care should be taken when making comparisons over time at this level of detail.

  The average value of WFTC awards paid to families with such awards in London at August 2000 was £80 per week. There are too few cases in the per cent. sample to yield a reliable separate estimate for Islington.

  Change in 2001–02

  Income tax yield (£ billion)

  Number of people affected (thousand)

  (aiA) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £60,000 in the UK

  2.6

  650

  (aiiA) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £75,000 in the UK

  2.2

  420

  (aiiiA) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £100,000 in the UK

  1.7

  240

  (aiB) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £60,000 in the Scotland

  0.12

  40

  (aiiB) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £75,000 in the Scotland

  0.10

  20

  (aiiiB) 45% rate for people with taxable incomes over £100,000 in the Scotland

  0.08

  10

  (biA) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £60,000 in the UK

  4.8

  650

  (biiA) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £75,000 in the UK

  4.0

  420

  (biiiA) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £100,000 in the UK

  3.2

  240

  (biB) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £60,000 in the Scotland

  0.22

  40

  (biiB) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £75,000 in the Scotland

  0.17

  20

  (biiiB) 50% rate for people with taxable incomes over £100,000 in the Scotland

  0.13

  10

  The estimates are based on the survey of personal incomes and are consistent with the March 2001 Budget.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were in employment in(a) England

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the percentage, (b) the average amount of capital gains tax paid by people and (c) the level of income in each earned income decile. [146172]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Following is the information requested for 1997–98, the latest available year:

  Capital gains tax: individuals 1997–98

  Earned income decile

  Lower limit of earned income level (£)

  Average amount of CGT for CGT payers (£)

  Proportion of total CGT (percentage)

  1

  -8,585

  12,150

  10.6

  2

  1

  8,010

  6.7

  3

  3,180

  6,120

  5.2

  4

  5,151

  5,520

  4.7

  5

  8,677

  5,400

  4.6

  6

  13,297

  6,340

  5.4

  7

  19,765

  7,150

  6.1

  8

  29,883

  10,140

  8.7

  9

  47,486

  16,640

  14.2

  10

  89,313

  39,260

  33.6

  All

  11,680

  100

  Notes:

  1. Earned income includes employment and self-employment income and pensions.

  2. For 1997–98, 140,000 individual taxpayers had total CGT liabilities of £1,637 million.

  3. Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual yield to the Treasury of increasing the top rate of income tax to(a) 95p and (b) 50p for those earning over (i) £60,000, (ii) £75,000 and (iii) £100,000 per annum in (A) the UK and (B) Scotland, indicating the number of people who will be affected in each case. [152779]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The full-year effects in 2001–02 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  and (b) Wales in each of the past 15 years; and what the percentage change was in each year. [152697]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  689W
  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 March 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people employed in England and Wales in the last 15 years (152697). I am replying in his absence.
  The attached table shows information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) on those in employment in both countries and the percentage change year in each year.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation guidelines.

  All in employment in England and Wales; spring 1986 to spring 2000

  Thousand and per cent. (not seasonally adjusted)

  England

  Wales

  Number of Number of people in employment

  Percentage change

  Number of people in employment

  Percentage change

  Spring

  1986

  20,806

  —

  1.085

  —

  1987

  21,199

  1.9

  1–080

  -0.5

  1988

  21,974

  3.7

  1,135

  5.1

  1989

  22,624

  3.0

  1,212

  6.8

  1990

  22,812

  0.8

  1,232

  1.6

  1991

  22,327

  -2.1

  1,202

  -2.4

  1992

  21,713

  -2.7

  1.192

  -0.9

  1993

  21,523

  -0.9

  1,155

  -3.1

  1994

  21,664

  0.7

  1.175

  1.8

  1995

  21,916

  1.2

  1,193

  1.4

  1996

  22,212

  1.3

  1,198

  0.5

  1997

  22,628

  1.9

  1,220

  1.8

  1998

  22,911

  1.2

  1,208

  -1.0

  1999

  23,224

  1.4

  1,229

  1.7

  2000

  23,536

  1.3

  1.246

  1.4

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Industrial Disputes (Days Lost)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days were lost in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months as a result of industrial disputes. [153756]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 15 March 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of working days lost in the UK as a result of industrial disputes (153756).
  In the twelve months to January 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, the number was 540,000.

  Credit Unions
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on credit unions. [153609]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 1068.

  Cross-border Securities
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the law dealing with resolution of disputes regarding ownership of securities held cross-border. [154421]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have today laid the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) (Amendment) Regulations 2001. These Regulations specify that the law which governs the proprietary rights of a person to securities is to be the law of the state where the relevant register, account or centralised deposit system is located. This change will facilitate resolution of disputes concerning ownership of such securities.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to simplify the administration of the tax rules applying to occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [154423]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An Inland Revenue sponsored team will be reviewing the tax approval arrangements applying to defined benefit pension schemes with the aim of developing a package of practical options for administrative simplification. The team will not be considering options for changing the underlying tax or benefit structures. The team will consist of Inland Revenue officials and secondees from the pensions industry. The review is due to be completed by February 2003.

  Departmental Policy (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Walthamstow constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154178]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Walthamstow, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,864, or 41 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 83 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18–24 year olds had helped 1,475 young people in Walthamstow constituency gain valuable skills and experience 585 (40 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle-income families. In August 2000, 1,300 families in Walthamstow constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 11,000 in Walthamstow constituency, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week,

  691W
  and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,400 in Walthamstow constituency.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made by region of the likely take-up of the accelerated payable tax credit for clearing up contaminated land. [154206]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No regional estimates are available for the take-up of this tax credit.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury has taken in relation to making regulations setting out the recognition requirements which are to apply to investment exchanges and clearing houses and to making an Order prescribing the markets and qualifying investments to which the new market abuse regime will apply under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [154422]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The regulations relating to recognition requirements for investment exchanges and clearing houses and the order relating to prescribed markets and qualifying investments were made by the Treasury and laid before Parliament today.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason motorcycle vehicles over 250cc do not qualify for reduced vehicle excise duty; and if he will make a statement. [153781]

  Mr. Timms
  Motorcycles over 250cc pay 40 per cent. of the standard rate of vehicle excise duty levied on vehicles in the private and light goods vehicle class. Budget 2001 froze the rate at £65 per annum.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mrs. Sari Conway
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what offer of employment he has made to Mrs. Sari Conway. [151784]

  Mrs. Roche
  I cannot comment on an individual case.?

  Islington Police Division
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the establishment level of(a) uniformed officers and (b) civilian staff was in Islington police division in (i) each year since 1996 and (ii) 2001 to date; and how many were actually in post in each category in each year. [153699]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the information in the table It is not possible for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to provide information on the budgeted workforce targets (establishment) for the earlier years because the current
  692W
  Islington division was only created in 1999 out of the former Islington and Holloway divisions. The MPS have been able to provide strength figures for the former Islington and Holloway divisions for the years before 1999.

  The Budgeted Workforce Target, or establishment, for the financial year 2001–02 has yet to be set.

  Metropolitan police—Islington division

  Police officers1,2

  Civilian support staff1

  As at 31 December

  Budgeted workforce target

  Actual officers in post

  Budgeted workforce target

  Actual staff in post

  1996

  n/a

  569.6 (532.6)

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  n/a

  549.4 (495.8)

  n/a

  148.1

  1998

  n/a

  529.4 (481.8)

  n/a

  147.7

  1999

  544 (484)

  510.6 (465)

  n/a

  147.0

  2000

  554 (489)

  542.9 (482.3)

  129

  138.7

  2001

  554 (489)

  539.9 (485.8)

  129

  135.2

  1 All figures are full-time equivalents.

  2 The figures in brackets are the number of uniformed police officers. The total figure for each year includes plain-clothes police officers.

  Community Beat Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community beat officers there are in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [152818]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there are 31 constables in Wandsworth who are predominately engaged in community beat duties.

  UK Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss the proposals in the Parliament's manifesto in which his Department has a policy interest. [152967]

  Mr. Boateng
  I was pleased to attend the first sitting of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament last month. I will be making an initial response to the United Kingdom Youth Parliament's manifesto on behalf of the Government in my capacity as Minister for Young People. Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I would be happy to meet a delegation from the United Kingdom Youth Parliament once the manifesto is published.

  Bingo Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to reduce the administrative burden on the bingo industry. [153765]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government published a consultation document on 6 November 2000 with proposals for deregulating the bingo industry. The document suggested the abolition of the existing requirement for licensed bingo clubs to notify the licensing authority of changes in their charges to players 14 days in advance. It also suggested allowing licensed bingo clubs to have both jackpot and amusements with
  693W
  prizes gaming machines instead of either one or the other, and increasing the possible number of prizes available in games of multiple bingo.

  The consultation period ended on 16 February 2001 and we have been considering the responses that we received. We now intend to lay an Order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 that would give effect to the changes outlined in the consultation document.

  Deportation
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Hosni Farhat (584006), a prisoner at Albany Prison, has not been deported. [153779]

  Mrs. Roche
  My officials will arrange for Mr. Farhat's deportation as soon as practicable.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual cost of escorting an asylum applicant in secure conditions to and from hearings in connection with his application and any subsequent appeal was in each of the last three years. [153830]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and, as it would have to be based on a range of variables, it would be prone to significant inaccuracy.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on talks with the Chinese Government on the difficulties of returning failed asylum seekers. [153833]

  Mrs. Roche
  Home Office officials have regular contact with the Chinese Government in order to obtain travel documents so that those Chinese nationals who have no lawful basis for remaining here and who are without valid national passports can be documented for return to China.

  As part of this contact, officials meet the Chinese authorities to explore ways of securing improvements to the travel document issuing process and to co-operate more generally in combating illegal immigration.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were resident in Wales and were waiting for their applications to be processed in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [153216]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the location of asylum seekers was not available centrally before 2000.

  On 3 April 2000, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) began supporting destitute asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom on or after that date. Information recorded by NASS shows that as at the end of February 2001, 301 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated NASS accommodation in Wales and 701 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated voucher only support and were located in Wales.
  694W
  These figures may include some asylum seeker families who have received a final negative decision because families of asylum seekers are eligible to remain supported by NASS until removal.

  Information is not currently available centrally on the location of asylum seekers who either do not apply for NASS support or who were receiving Department of Social Security or local authority support before NASS began.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are awaiting deportation; and how many were deported in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [153215]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information on deported asylum seekers is shown in the table. It is not possible to say how many asylum seekers voluntarily left the United Kingdom without the knowledge of the Home Office. Therefore, it is not possible to say how many are awaiting deportation.

  Asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom following refusal of leave to enter or enforcement action 1997 to 2001

  1997

  1998

  19991

  20001

  Total asylum removals and voluntary departures2

  7,185

  6,985

  7,660

  8,980

  Of whom:

  removed or left as a result of deportation action under Section 3(5) or 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971

  455

  350

  140

  170

  1 Data are provisional

  2 Includes action against passengers applying at ports

  Note:

  All figures are roundel to the nearest 5

  Immigration and Asylum (Detention)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the time it takes an asylum applicant to secure conditions to receive(a) an initial decision on an asylum application and (b) to complete all appeals if the initial application is refused; [153826]

  (2) how many asylum applicants are held in secure conditions. [153825]

  Mrs. Roche
  Current information on persons detained who have claimed asylum and the time taken for an applicant in detention to receive an initial decision or complete all appeals is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The most recent information relates to the number of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 as at 31 January 2001. At that date a total of 1,334 persons, including those who had claimed asylum, were recorded as detained.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the existing immigration detention estate; and by how many places. [153827]
  695W
  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Secretary announced in May 2000 a policy to deliver new detention places to enable the Immigration Service to achieve its removals targets.

  Our plans to increase the Immigration Detention estate from its current capacity are as follows

  Places

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre (Bedford)

  900

  Harmondsworth Detention Centre (Heathrow)

  440

  Dungavel Detention Centre (Scotland)

  150

  Aldington Detention Centre (Kent)

  300

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites his officials considered as potential places to build immigration detention centres in the last three years. [153828]

  Mrs. Roche
  Over the past three years my officials have considered about 120 sites throughout the country as potential candidates to build new immigration detention centres.

  The majority of sites did not meet our requirements for a variety of reasons, including location, nature of the site, availability for a quick development and cost.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual cost of holding an asylum applicant in secure conditions was in each of the last three years. [153831]

  Mrs. Roche
  Secure detention facilities are routinely provided on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's detention estate, supplemented by places in Prison Service accommodation. Police services also provide some detention on a limited, ad hoc basis. Information specifically on the cost of asylum detainees is not separately available. Assuming full occupancy, the average annual cost of a place for an immigration detainee is shown in the table:

  £

  Year

  Average Annual Cost1

  1998–99

  26,819

  1999–2000

  27,433

  2000–01

  229,424

  1 These figures are weighted averages of the cost of Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) detention and Prison Service facilities, taking into account an assessment of the usage of detention in the two types of accommodation. The figures cover the running costs of IND detention facilities but exclude expenditure on capital works and major maintenance. The figures for Prison Service detention are based on the average cost per prisoner place. The figures do not include the cost of temporary police accommodation.

  2 The figures for 2000–01 are based on estimates of the full-year IND costs and the target cost per prisoner place for Prison Service detention.

  Criminal Record Checks (Volunteers)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost to public funds of his proposed exemption for volunteers from fees for criminal record checks. [153791]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have announced our intention that standard and enhanced disclosures, which include those working in sensitive positions with the 696W
  vulnerable, will be issued free of charge to volunteers. We have also made clear that it remains our intention that the Criminal Records Bureau should be self-financing by means of the fees that it charges. Work is continuing on the fee levels, but we expect to make a further announcement shortly.

  London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the ability of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to generate additional income under Best Value legislation. [153722]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is defined as a Best Value authority under the Local Government Act 1999. Under the duty of Best Value, authorities are required to secure continuous improvement in the way in which they exercise their functions, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

  Section 16 of the Local Government Act 1999 allows the Secretary of State to exclude Best Value authorities from the application of existing legislation which prevents them from achieving Best Value or to amend the application of such legislation. It also allows for new powers to be conferred to facilitate the achievement of Best Value.

  The Government expect to publish this month a consultation paper on the use of powers in section 16 to provide new and amended powers for partnership working. This will include proposals for Best Value authorities to provide a wider range of goods and services to partners, both in the public and private sectors. Draft orders will be laid before Parliament following the conclusion of the consultation exercise.

  Election Observers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow overseas observers to be present in election polling stations. [153464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have no plans to allow overseas observers inside election polling stations. Current legislation restricts who is allowed to be present in polling stations to prevent possible intimidation of voters and preserve the secrecy of the ballot. The hon. Member recently wrote to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about this matter and I shall shortly be replying to him in detail.

  Police Inspectorate
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Police Inspectorate last reported to him on equal opportunities, community and race relations challenges, policy and training of the Royal Parks Police. [153461]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no statutory requirement for the Royal Parks Constabulary, which is a non-Home Office police force, to be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. A review of the Constabulary was undertaken during July and August 2000 by Mr. Anthony Speed, a former Assistant Commissioner of
  697W
  the Metropolitan Police Service. I understand that the review was conducted in the form of a full inspection in accordance with the latest procedures and protocols practised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The report was submitted recently to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for the Royal Parks Constabulary. He will be publishing the report shortly.

  National Black Police Association
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consult the National Black Police Association on challenges facing the Royal Parks Police and other police services in the fields of equal opportunities and community and race relations; and if he will make a statement. [153462]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose Department has overall responsibility for the Royal Parks Constabulary, that the force intends to consult the National Black Police Association about an extension of diversity training. The Home Office has consulted the association about community and race relations training for officers in Home Office forces in England and Wales. The association was also consulted during the development of minority ethnic employment targets and an associated action plan for all Home Office forces, published in July 1999 under the title 'Dismantling Barriers'. The association is represented on the steering group overseeing the implementation of 'Dismantling Barriers'.

  Lancashire
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) funded and (b) actual (A) special constables and (B) salaried constables were in post in the Lancashire Constabulary (i) on 31 March 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [153220]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate collect police personnel statistics, including those of the Special Constabulary.

  There are no national target numbers for specials, and Lancashire Constabulary advises that they do not differentiate between funded and actual specials. The Special Constabulary strength figures for Lancashire Special Constabulary for 31 March 1997 and 30 September 2000 (the latest figures available) are as follows:

  March 1997

  September 2000

  Total strength

  483

  362

  I understand from the Chief Constable that it is not possible to provide information on the number of funded constable posts as Lancashire does not budget for workforce totals and the force devolves its budget to its Divisional Commanders, who then determine how to use funds to maximise their effectiveness locally. Police Constable numbers for Lancashire Constabulary for 31 March 1997 and 30 September 2000 (the latest figures available) are as follows:
  698W

  March 1997

  September 2000

  Total strength

  2,493

  2,463

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reported offences involving violence there were in Lancashire in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; and how many of those involved (i) village shops and (ii) village post offices. [153221]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Numbers of recorded violent crimes in Lancashire by category are given in the table, the most recent published data being for the year ending September 2000. Recorded crime statistics do not generally include the location of offences, and so details of those involving village shops and village post offices are not available. It should be noted that, owing to the change in counting rules on 1 April 1998, figures for recorded crime before and after that date are not directly comparable. For example, from that date, figures for offences of violence against the person additionally include figures for common assault and assault on a constable, among other offences.

  Recorded crime in Lancashire—number of recorded crimes in violent crime categories

  Year ending

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  March 1998

  3,865

  966

  887

  March 1999

  10,328

  879

  982

  March 2000

  9,803

  754

  1,058

  September 2000

  9,832

  810

  1,065

  Police (Greater Manchester)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were on operational duties in Greater Manchester in each year since 1990. [152888]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: It is not possible to provide data on operational numbers before 1996–97. The information on operational numbers is collected annually by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Year 1

  Operational police number2

  Total police strength2

  1996–97

  5,553 (80%)

  6,922

  1997–98

  5,720 (82%)

  6,949

  1998–99

  5,673 (83%)

  6,810

  1999–2000

  6,115 (90%)

  6,795

  1 As at 31 March

  2 All figures are full-time equivalents

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by constituency, the closed circuit TV schemes that have been(a) funded and (b) part-funded by the Government in each of the last three years, and the cost of each. [153141]
  699W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of closed circuit television (CCTV) schemes funded wholly or in part by the Home Office during each of the last three years are listed by parliamentary constituency. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The schemes listed include those approved to date under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative and those funded in 1998 under Round 4 of the earlier CCTV Challenge Competition.

  During the last three years, 283 CCTV schemes totalling more than £65 million have been awarded Home Office funding, of which 106 schemes were wholly funded by the Home Office, and 277 schemes were part-funded with nearly £19 million committed from other sources.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the funding available for closed circuit TV schemes in(a) Wansbeck and (b) the UK. [153148]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the second round of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television Initiative (CCTV), more than 800 initial funding applications totalling over £200 million were submitted by crime and disorder reduction partnerships, including two applications from partnerships within the Wansbeck constituency.

  All the applications are currently under assessment and we expect to advise partnerships of the outcome very shortly.

  Although this is the final round of funding under the CCTV Initiative, there will be further opportunities for CCTV funding under future Government anti-crime programmes.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153522]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are in maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime,
  700W
  cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Don Valley constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  A project in conjunction with forces in Derbyshire, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, south Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and west Midlands to tackle distraction burglary has been awarded £168,000.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  Approximately £32,000 was awarded to a project in Edlington, Doncaster under round two of the Reducing Burglary Initiative. South Yorkshire Police in partnership with Doncaster Crime and Disorder Partnership are working on interventions that include: appointment of a project co-ordinator, target hardening, high profile media campaign, neighbourhood watch and property marking scheme.

  Around £399,000 has been awarded under round three of the initiative to allow south Yorkshire police in partnership with the Doncaster Crime and Disorder Partnership to concentrate on Doncaster's burglary "hotspots". Interventions include: supervision of prolific offenders, Neighbourhood Watch development, improved home security for victims and media and marketing campaigns.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Under round one of the CCTV Initiative the Safer Sheffield Steering Group submitted two bids covering Sheffield's town centre and the Don Valley area, with a combined value of over £2 million. The two Sheffield Wide Imaging Switching Scheme (SWISS) bids are being considered together. So far £725,000 has been awarded for the system to be piloted in the town centre. When this trial has been evaluated a decision on the remaining funding will be taken.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Don Valley to a greater or lesser extent. For example: 376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established; racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home
  701W
  Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

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

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Under round one of the Targeted Policing Initiative, £40,000 has been awarded to develop an integrated strategy to tackle crime and disorder in rural towns and villages. Northumbria police in partnership with Tynedale District Council, local parish councils and the Northumberland Social Services and probation service will tackle both localised offending and crime resulting from travelling criminals. A local multi-agency safety group will develop intelligence about offenders and identify "hotspots". The project will employ a range of interventions including a mobile police station and use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV).

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  Jarrow comes under South Tyneside YOT which is involved in a number of schemes including establishing restorative approaches, working with victims of crime and holding successful restorative conferences. 35 per cent. of reparation orders/requirements have included an element of direct reparation to victims. There is a very successful project in Biddick Hall where 22 young people involved in serious youth disorder did reparation in the same area repairing damage to a primary school, cleaning off graffiti etc. It has been very well received by local community/ residents (and by parents of young people). It is too early to say definitively what the effects of these actions are on re-offending and reducing levels of youth crime. In response to some concern about youth disorder, there has recently been a seminar funded and facilitated by Government Office North-East, and the YOT will be taking appropriate action within the context of a proposed youth disorder strategy.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Jarrow to a greater or lesser extent. For example: 376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established; racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of police per 702W
  head of population was (a) in each police force and (b) in total on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152373]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is given in the table. The comparison 'population per police officer' provides a more meaningful figure than 'numbers of police per head of population'.

  Force

  Police officers as at September 2000

  Population as at June 1999

  Population per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  2,941

  1,501,193

  510

  Bedfordshire

  1,006

  562,214

  559

  Cambridgeshire

  1,266

  724,897

  573

  Cheshire

  2,000

  982,527

  491

  Cleveland

  1,421

  555,944

  391

  Cumbria

  1,048

  491,814

  469

  Derbyshire

  1,780

  974,084

  547

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,873

  1,569,666

  546

  Dorset

  1,299

  692,543

  533

  Durham

  1,581

  606,744

  384

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,045

  480,663

  460

  Essex

  2,780

  1,617,660

  582

  Gloucestershire

  1,142

  561,941

  492

  Greater Manchester

  6,767

  2,577,040

  381

  Gwent

  1,271

  556,622

  438

  Hampshire

  3,435

  1,781,049

  519

  Hertfordshire

  1,961

  1,043,028

  532

  Humberside

  1,905

  881,586

  463

  Kent

  3,239

  1,587,243

  490

  Lancashire

  3,215

  1,425,533

  443

  Leicestershire

  2,010

  934,687

  465

  Lincolnshire

  1,162

  628,612

  541

  Merseyside

  4,081

  1,403,625

  344

  Norfolk

  1,387

  796,460

  574

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  621,162

  533

  Northumbria

  3,885

  1,418,626

  365

  North Wales

  1,393

  657,738

  472

  North Yorkshire

  1,293

  747,613

  578

  Nottinghamshire

  2,232

  1,032,685

  463

  South Wales

  3,029

  1,242,004

  410

  South Yorkshire

  3,184

  1,302,410

  409

  Staffordshire

  2,157

  1,060,606

  492

  Suffolk

  1,115

  674,639

  605

  Surrey

  2,113

  1,078,067

  510

  Sussex

  2,812

  1,514,991

  539

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  2,116,233

  565

  Warwickshire

  912

  507,909

  557

  West Mercia

  1,906

  1,140,577

  598

  West Midlands

  7,350

  2,626,505

  357

  West Yorkshire

  4,806

  2,115,380

  440

  Wiltshire

  1,099

  610,326

  555

  City of London1

  720

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  24,695

  7,285,045

  295

  Total force numbers2

  122,230

  52,689,891

  431

  Total for England and Wales including secondments

  124,614

  52,689,891

  423

  1 Police per head of Population for City and Metropolitan police are combined.

  2 Excluding secondments to central service, NCS, NCIS and inter-force units.

  Note:

  Police numbers are full time equivalents.

  Police Training
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have entered police training in each of the last two years, broken down by police force area. [153362]
  703W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The vast in majority of police training (over 80 per cent.) takes place in forces. Details of numbers of officers undergoing training are not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Police Officers (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government have taken to bring the number of police officers in Wandsworth up to its establishment, with special reference to Battersea. [151151]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government want to see police numbers rising. Our spending plans therefore make generous provision, intended to meet major pay, pensions and other pressures on forces as well as providing ring-fenced funding to increase recruitment through the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF).

  As part of the police grant settlement for 2001–02, the Metropolitan police authority will receive £1.822.8 million in Government supported funding. This is an increase of 5.3 per cent. over the provision for 2000–01. In addition, funding is available from the CFF to enable the Metropolitan police service to recruit an additional 2,044 officers over and above the number that the force would otherwise have recruited in the three years from April 2000.

  Other measures which should boost recruitment in the Met include the £3,327 per annum increase in London Allowance paid to officers in the Met (and City), who were recruited on or after 1 September 1994; the provision of free rail travel within a 70–mile radius of London for the Met's officers; and the National Recruitment Campaign. By 25 February the campaign had resulted in 2,304 Expressions of Interest being passed to the Met, and a further 1,160 calls transferred to the Met's own call centre.

  Several outline bids covering the Met police area are also being assessed under the first round of the Government's Starter Homes Initiative which will enable key workers, including police officers, to purchase homes in areas of high-cost housing.

  The allocation of resources and the deployment of officers within the Metropolitan police is an operational decision for the Commissioner.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Country Court Hearing Centres
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement in Westminster Hall of 8 March 2001,Official Report, columns 169–70WH, if he will list the county court hearing centres which he plans to close in response to his Departmental Consultation Paper on court modernisation; and when they are to be closed. [153585]
  704W
  Mr. Lock
  At present there are no plans to close particular county court hearing centres as a result of my Departmental Consultation Paper on "Modernising the Civil Courts".

  A key theme of "Modernising the Civil Courts" is to make best use of our resources to improve access to justice. As the consultation paper notes, we have a responsibility to ask whether the current court estate offers the best way of providing the services that we have a duty to provide, or whether there are more cost-effective alternatives that maintain, or improve, the level of service required. To that end we are developing a strategy for achieving best value from our estate which will include identifying the most appropriate locations for hearing centres. Part of the exercise will involve looking at opportunities to develop partnerships with other agencies, including the magistrates courts, so that hearings and other services can be provided in areas where there is no permanent county court building.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his oral statement, in Standing Committee A, Official Report, 6 March 2001; c. 6, how many solicitors' firms had signed up to the Legal Services Commission contract for criminal legal services by 12 March; and how many he expects will have done so by 2 April. [153586]

  Mr. Lock
  As at 12 March 2001, the Legal Services Commission had received 1,285 signed general criminal contracts from firms of solicitors across England and Wales. It is expected that some 2,800 firms, the vast majority of those that were offered contracts to sign, will elect to take up the contract.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of Sir Leonard Peach's independent scrutiny report on the Appointment Processes for Judges and Queen's Counsel in England and Wales. [154448]

  Mr. Lock
  I am pleased to tell the House that Her Majesty yesterday made Orders in Council defining the functions of her Commissioners for Judicial Appointments and appointing Professor Sir Colin Murray Campbell, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham, as her First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments. The Commission has commenced its work today. The recruitment of Deputy Commissioners will begin shortly, and the Lord Chancellor hopes the first of them will be appointed in the autumn.

  Sir Leonard also recommended that a pilot scheme be produced for an Assessment Centre for judicial appointments. The tendering process will commence shortly to identify consultants who will advise on the design and development of the pilot scheme. Several of Sir Leonard's other recommendations—such as improvements to the forms used in consultations on candidates for judicial appointments, and to the procedures for appointment to Silk—have already been implemented.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Factortame Litigation
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the role of the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the Factortame litigation. [154271]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Factortame litigation involved a claim for damages against the UK Government as a result of the 1996 ruling of the European Court of Justice that those affected by the removal of vessels from the UK fishing vessel register in 1989 under the Merchant Shipping Act 1998 had been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality, contrary to EC law.

  The Government have reached a settlement with all 133 claimants. The total amount claimed was £285 million excluding interest. The cases were all settled for a total sum of damages of £44.99 million, including £20.19 million in interest.

  His Honour Judge J. K. Toulmin CMG QC made the following observations in open court:
  "I think a special word should go to Jonathan Morris and his team because they have had the carriage of the administration of a large part of the action and they have done so in a way, so far, which has really been extraordinarily impressive, and I wanted to put that on the record now. The Treasury Solicitor, that is Jonathan Morris and his team, are the ones who have understood what the whole picture is and they are the ones who have therefore been in the position where they have had to deal with everybody else, and indeed to assist the Court in a way that is entirely neutral…I see nods from other parties represented on the front row, so they understand precisely the sense in which I am making this comment."

  Coram Foundation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General when he and his officials first met officers and staff of the Coram family to discuss the Charity Commission-approved scheme to maximise the contribution of the Coram collection. [153666]

  The Solicitor-General
  My officials, and those acting on my behalf in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, have not met with officers and staff of the Coram Foundation. However there has been a considerable amount of correspondence with the Foundation and their solicitors. There have also been informal meetings between our respective Counsel.

  The Foundation has been asked to set out its proposals in writing, rather than at a meeting, so that there can be no misunderstanding about what is intended.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General when he last took action in relation to the judgment of the Charity Commission and the trustees at the Foundling Hospital. [153552]

  The Solicitor-General
  I reconsidered that matter in the week beginning 7 March, in the light of the further material which has been submitted by the Foundation this year and with the benefit of joint opinion from Counsel which was obtained on my behalf.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the wishes of Handel and Hogarth in relation to the trustees' scheme for the Coram Collection. [153667]
  706W
  The Solicitor-General
  It has not been the case of the Governors of the Foundation that the Hogarth paintings or the Handeliana are held on special trusts such as would preclude their sale. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the Governors to consider how the assets of the charity can best be used to advance its objects: those objects being, broadly, the care of poor deserted children.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General how he took account of the views of all the trustees of registered charity 312278 before responding to the view of one trustee. [153553]

  The Solicitor-General
  After being alerted to this matter by Peter G1azebrook, a Governor of the Coram Foundation, in April last year I asked that inquiries should be undertaken. The Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting on my behalf, first contacted the Coram Foundation on 28 July 2000.

  I have been anxious throughout to ensure that my consideration of this matter should be as well-informed as possible. I have also been open with the Foundation, for example making available the draft particulars of claim and the recent Counsel's Opinion on the matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General what consultations he had with the(a) Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (b) Home Office and (c) Charity Commission before intervening in the Coram scheme. [153668]

  The Solicitor-General
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Treasury Solicitor's Department wrote, on my behalf, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 23 August 2000. A reply was received on 1 November 2000. Since that time DCMS has been kept informed as to developments.

  (b) There have been no contacts with the Home Office, which has no responsibility for this matter.

  (c) The Treasury Solicitor's Department first contacted the Charity Commission on 5 July 2000. The Commission has since been kept fully informed as to developments.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Pensions
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the criteria that determine the way in which pensions are paid to the Church of England clergy. [153832]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  On retirement at or after age 65 with 37 or more years' full-time service, the pension benefits for clergy consist of a pension of two thirds the previous year's National Minimum Stipend plus a tax free lump sum of three times that amount. Pensions may be drawn any time after age 55 subject to appropriate actuarial discounts.

  The benefit formula reflects best practice in occupational schemes. It recognises that clergy receive a State pension and as housing is provided while clergy are working, also recognises that clergy in retirement need to meet the cost of housing. Discretionary help is available through the housing loan and rental schemes administered by the Church of England Pensions Board.
  707W
  My hon. Friend will already be aware that the Archbishops' Council is currently undertaking a review of the clergy remuneration package, including pensions. If he would like more information and will let me have details I will gladly inquire further on his behalf.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was spent out public funds on non-departmental public bodies, Government-appointed taskforces and other publicly funded bodies in(a) May 1997 and (b) January 2001; and how many staff were employed. [153906]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Information on the expenditure and staffing of non-departmental public bodies is published in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies are available from the Libraries of the House. Information on the expenditure and staffing of task forces is not held centrally. However, as a rule, their expenditure is negligible and they do not employ staff.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the cost to public funds of the regional cultural consortiums to date; and what is their forecast expenditure. [153430]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The cost and future allocations for each consortium are as follows:

  £

  Expenditure1

  1999–20002

  1,900

  2000–01

  327,070

  Allocations

  2001–02

  50,000

  2002–03

  125,000

  2003–04

  62,500

  1 Figures given are averages.

  2 The Regional Cultural Consortiums were established in October 1999.

  3 Expenditure calculated to 12 March 2001.

  The consortiums also receive support from my Department's staff based within the Government Offices in the regions. The Regional Development Agencies and the various regional agencies have all been encouraged to help with funding and other means of support.

  The consortiums will use these resources to support their strategic role in the regions and promote joint working with other regional partners in order to ensure that cultural and sporting interests make a significant contribution to economic development, regeneration and social inclusion in their region.

  Digital Broadcasting (Platform Access)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that the BBC has access to all digital platforms on an equal basis and to ensure that such access is granted(a) on not-for-profit and (b) a free basis. [153276]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: None. Our White Paper "A New Future for Communications" made clear our policy that public service channels should be available on all main platforms at no extra cost to the viewer and we are currently considering the responses to our consultation on the White Paper on this issue, including views on the terms of access. BBC licence fee-funded television services are of course already available on the three main digital broadcasting platforms, terrestrial, cable and satellite, though the financial arrangements differ from platform to platform.

  Millennium Dome (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date the New Millennium Experience Company received sponsorship money for the faith zone from(a) Christian trusts and (b) the Laing Family Trust. [153534]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company received support for the faith zone from four charitable trusts on 11 May 1999. The Laing Family Trust's support was received in two payments—the first on 9 February 1999 and the second on 27 October 1999

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the approaches which were made by Ministers to(a) companies and (b) individuals in respect of sponsorship of the Millennium Dome. [148359]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 March 2001]: I am aware that approaches and negotiations were already under way under the previous Administration. This then of course continued under this Government. While Ministers from time to time had contact with sponsors, we have made it clear that the responsibility for negotiating and securing sponsorship rested with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC).

  Dancing Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 202W, on dancing schools, what is his estimate of the number of voluntary dance classes; how much financial assistance is provided for these classes; what his estimate is of the number of Irish dancing schools provided by the voluntary sector; and how much financial assistance is provided for these schools. [153580]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Dance classes are provided through a diverse range of public, privately-funded, and voluntary provision. Because of this diversity, an assessment of the number of voluntary dance classes would prove a significant undertaking. The Voluntary Arts Network advises that there is anecdotal information on provision of voluntary dance classes, but that a comprehensive and thorough assessment is not available based on current information. The Foundation for
  709W
  Community Dance, the national development agency for community dance, recently undertook a mapping exercise to establish the range of participation in dance provided by the funded sector across England. This excluded local private dance schools, organisations specifically catering for recreational dance forms (including Ceroc) and dance opportunities offered by the commercial sector. However, sources include: local authorities (significant), European funds, the Single Regeneration Budget, the Health Service, Regional Arts Boards, Lottery, trusts and foundations. Private, commercial and voluntary provision is also significant.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the response of his Department and its tourism-sponsored bodies to the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [154224]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 14 March 2001,Official Report, columns 1021–36. My Department has, together with the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Council, issued guidance to the public, to prospective visitors from overseas and the tourism industry on the implications of the disease. The British Tourist Authority is rebutting misleading stories overseas which are confusing this outbreak with BSE. The English Tourism Council is consulting with the industry on how tourism businesses can best cope with and recover from the effects of the outbreak and local tourism information offices are giving out information on destinations that remain open, such as our wealth of museums and galleries and historic towns. My Department is keeping the consequential implications for tourism under close review and I shall be visiting Cumbria this weekend to see those implications for myself, following the visit of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Devon on 14 March.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in other member states; and if he will make a statement. [151994]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry is in constant contact with other member states and the European Commission. Animal disease issues are discussed regularly at the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be discussing the situation with EU counterparts at the Agriculture Council on 19 March.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of European Community law on the spread of foot and mouth disease. [152663]

  Ms Quin
  A detailed epidemiological investigation is being conducted into every confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The results of these investigations will be published. An assessment will be made of the lessons 710W
  to be learned from the original cause of the outbreak and the factors that are contributing towards the spread of the disease in order to inform future policy.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has carried out an assessment of the risk due to BSE infectivity from burning cattle during the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [154476]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  An independent risk assessment from DNV Consulting which I commissioned is today being published on the MAFF Foot and Mouth Disease internet site. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The model used by DNV estimates that a pyre of 100 dairy cattle aged over five years old could result in a total of 7 x 10-4 infective units being ingested by those exposed. This would be spread over a fairly wide population and so the individual risk of exposure would be low. For examle, if the infective units were spread over 1,000 people the individual risk would be 7 x 10-7 infective units per person, in other words less than one in a million.

  The recommendation of the Environment Agency is that there need not be any immediate change to carcase burning activities. The assessment will, however, be taken into account in guidance to Agency staff on factors to take into account if they are asked to permit sites for carcase burning.

  This advice has come at a time when, in view mainly of practical considerations, I have decided to increase the disposal by rendering, in addition to on-farm burning, of carcases from FMD infected farms and dangerous contact premises.

  Beef
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much beef was(a) produced in and (b) consumed by the UK in the last 12 months. [152287]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The following table provides details of the quantity of beef produced and consumed by the UK in 2000.

  UK supply of beef in 2000

  Thousand tonnes1

  Home fed production

  706

  Consumption2

  919

  1 Dressed carcase weight equivalent

  2 Total domestic use; home fed production plus imports less exports net of stock change

  Foot and Mouth (Livestock Movement)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help is available to cattle owners who seek to move animals on welfare grounds. [152771]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications for cattle, sheep and pigs that are not displaying symptoms of foot and mouth disease, of movement restrictions between adjacent areas of farm land owned or farmed by the same farmer; and if he will make a statement. [152806]
  711W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that cows within the exclusion zones can be in moved to adequate facilities for calving. [153188]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 8 and 12 March 2001]: We are aware of serious and growing animal welfare problems as a consequence of movement restrictions imposed following the foot and mouth outbreak. Two schemes were therefore announced on 9 March in order to address these problems.

  The occupational licence permits a farmer to make repeat movements of foot and mouth disease susceptible livestock for a distance of up to 0.5 km on land of which he is the sole occupant. Such licences are available in the controlled area and in the infected area. Movements are not permitted within 3 km of an infected place.

  The local movement licence permits movements of up to 5 km as the crow flies (up to a journey of 10 km) but only in the controlled area.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will withdraw the Schedule D notice served on the Madron Meat Abattoir in Penzance and reinstate the grant of approval from the Meat Hygiene Service; [153173]

  (2) if he will reissue a movement lisence to Mr. Tim Stockwell of Kingsbridge in respect of the movement of 100 pigs to an abattoir. [153174]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Restrictions were imposed on Madron Meat Abattoir while the State Veterinary Service investigated a suspected case of foot and mouth disease which occurred within 3 kilometres of the abattoir. Tho restrictions were removed on 11 March after it was revealed that the animals involved were not affected by foot and mouth.

  Responsibility for licensing the movement of animals to slaughter lies with local authorities. Mr. Stockwell should therefore contact Devon County Council regarding the proposed movement of his pigs to slaughter.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed directly in agriculture at the latest date for which figures are available. [153129]

  Ms Quin
  The estimate of the total workforce employed directly in agriculture in the United Kingdom in the year 2000 is 560,000. This is 2.0 per cent. of the total workforce in employment.

  Research and Development Budget
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what the budget for research and development into organic and other non-intensive farming methods is in the 2000–01 financial year; what the main(a) budget headings and (b) contracts let are; and how much has been spent to date; [153162]

  (2) what the budget for research and development into organic and other non-intensive farming methods is for the 2001–02 financial year; and what the main budget headings are. [153163]
  712W
  Ms Quin
  The budget for organic farming research in MAFF for the financial year 2000–01 is £2,139,000. This is not broken down into further budget headings. The level of commitment of this budget is £2,157,000, which funds 39 projects. A list of current projects is available in the Libraries of the House.

  MAFF is also funding £2,150,000 of research in 2000–01 on non-intensive livestock production. There is no specific budget heading for this research but a list of the 37 current projects has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the organic farming sector also benefits from much of the other research the Ministry undertakes, for example, its planned spend on research into biological control techniques, plant health, animal welfare and wildlife conservation on farms of over £14.3 million in 2000–01 and over £13.8 million in 2001–02.

  With regard to the financial year 2001–02, the budget for organic farming research in MAFF is £2,139,000. This is not broken down into further budget headings. The budget for non-intensive livestock production research in MAFF for financial year 2001–02 is £2,421,000.

  Swill Feed
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the use of swill feed. [152833]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The issue of swill feed will be thoroughly examined as part of our policy review consequential to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Everything but Arms
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with(a) the European Commissioner for Development and (b) his European counterparts on (i) the recent amendments to proposals for the 'Everything But Arms' initiative and (ii) the implications of these proposals for United Kingdom sugar producers; and if he will make a statement. [153554]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have had ongoing discussions with the European Commission and other member states on the 'Everything But Arms' proposal, culminating in the adoption of the Presidency compromise on 26 February. On sugar this provides for an eight-year transitional period, comprising a duty-free interim quota for raw sugar for refining, starting at 74,185 tonnes in July 2001 and increasing by 15 per cent. each year, coupled with the phase-out of duties on all LDC sugar between 2006 and 2009. In the short term, the implications of the EBA regulation for United Kingdom sugar beet producers are likely to be minimal. We will press the Commission to include the impact of EBA in the studies it expects to undertake in preparation for the next reform of the sugar regime.

  Farmers (Private Insurance)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how Government compensation
  713W
  payments in respect of foot and mouth disease take into account payments under private insurance policies for the same losses. [153732]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The Government compensate farmers for the full market value of animals slaughtered as a disease control measure. They do not take account of any private insurance that the farmer may have taken out to cover wider consequential losses caused by movement restrictions. Section 34(5) of the Animal Health Act 1981 states that if the owner of a slaughtered animal has insurance on that animal, the insurers may deduct the statutory compensation from the amount of money payable under the insurance, before they make any payment.

  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the latest volume of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" to be published. [154479]

  Ms Quin
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000" was published today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further changes he proposes to make to the stakeholder pensions regulations. [154446]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government made a commitment to work with the pensions industry to ensure that stakeholder pensions offer a realistic and effective second pension option. We have today laid amending regulations to make changes of a practical and technical nature. The changes make the stakeholder regulations more effective, and include provisions which take account of the views of the pensions industry, including organisations setting up stakeholder pension schemes. For example, schemes will be able to stagger the issue of annual benefit statements over the year, rather than having to issue them all at once.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Winter Fuel Payment due to Doris Lilian Riblan of Ferndown will be paid. [153508]

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

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 13 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the winter fuel payment due to Doris Lilian Riblan of Ferndown will be paid.
  As you will appreciate, individual customer cases are confidential. I will therefore, write to you privately on this matter.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 404W, on Departmental IT projects, if he will disaggregate by type of expenditure the anticipated costs for each of the modernisation projects. [153920]

  Angela Eagle
  Further to my answer of 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 404W, modernisation projects have been brigaded under these headings in order to facilitate the management of the Department's modernisation programme.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what grounds the deceased retain national insurance number. [153785]

  Mr. Rooker
  The retention of deceased persons' National Insurance Numbers (N1NOs) is necessary to process claims fcr Widow's Benefit and from 9 April 2001 for Bereavement Benefit claims. Additionally records of the deceased must be kept in order to protect the inheritable rights of the surviving spouse to ensure that they are awarded the correct rate of Retirement Pension when they reach State Pension age or the rate of Retirement Pension which the survivor already receives is increased correctly. The retention is therefore necessary to protect the rights of those making National Insurance contributions.

  Retaining NINOs also enables checks to be made for benefit recovery against estates and assists the prevention of a further NINO being fraudulently created under the deceased's identity.

  Pensioners (Incomes and Benefits)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his most recent estimate is of the number of pensioner units with an income of(a) £200 to £210, (b) £211 to £220 and (c) £221 and above who are in receipt of (i) Housing Benefit, (ii) Council Tax Benefit, (iii) Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit and (iv) one or more of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. [153787]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners in Great Britain in receipt of Housing Benefit and/or Counsil Tax Benefit by income over £200—May 1999

  Total income

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit

  Over £200

  8,000

  12,000

  10,000

  10,000

  £200-£210

  5,000

  6,000

  1—

  1—

  £210-£220

  1,000

  2,000

  1—

  1—

  Over £220

  2,000

  4,000

  1—

  1—

  1 Data are nil or negligible (negligible being numbers less than 500)

  Notes:

  1.The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures for cases in receipt of Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit have been rounded to the nearest thousand. However due to the estimation procedure to produce the figures for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, or Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit, these figures need to be rounded to the nearest 10,000 due to the collection procedures in Scotland.
  715W
  3. Pensioners have been identified by the claimant or the partner being aged 60 and over.

  4. The bands of income have been reached by looking at the total income excluding any Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit but including income assumed from any savings

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the CSA has a remit to re-examine its original decision to cover the new partner of child and mother; [153611]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2001, Official Report, column 535W, on the Child Support Agency, what criteria the CSA uses to decide whether to re-examine a case which leads to a change in the original decision. [153701]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency (CSA) will re-examine the original decision on a case if there has been a change in circumstances, including where there is a new partner of the parent with care.

  Whenever the CSA revises or supersedes a decision on a case, both parents are notified of the new decision and how it has been arrived at. Either patent can ask the CSA to look at the decision again within one month of being notified if they think that the decision is wrong. If the CSA accepts that there has been a mistake, it will correct it straight away. In re-examining a decision the CSA will check that the law has been applied correctly to the facts of the case.

  Either parent can also appeal against the CSA's decision to an independent tribunal who will consider whether the Agency applied the law correctly.

  If neither parent asks for their case to be looked at again, the CSA will not look at the case unless a periodic case check is carried out.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 535W, on the Child Support Agency, (1) if he will provide a breakdown for each category for each council area in Scotland; [153700]

  (2) how many of the complaints in the named categories were lodged in Scotland. [153702]

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

  The total number of letters of complaint received by the Child Support Agency's Scotland and North Eastern Business Unit in 1999–2000 was 3,078. This covers the whole of Scotland, Northumberland, North East England and parts of North Yorkshire.

  The total number of letters of complaint received between April 2000 and 28 February 2001 is 2,362. The categories are shown as follows.

  716W

  Category of complaints

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Delay/Failure to take appropriate action

  1,461

  1,521

  Incorrect action

  725

  706

  Communication

  760

  705

  Policy

  506

  542

  Complaints about staff

  190

  161

  Disclosure of information

  65

  48

  Good cause

  16

  5

  Human Rights Act

  0

  26

  Total

  3,723

  3,714

  1 Year to date

  Note:

  The total number of complaints is higher than the number of letters because some letters of complaint covered more than one subject.

  Elderly Residents (North-west)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged over 65 were resident in(a) Ribble Valley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West in 1997; and how many are resident today. [153218]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 14 March 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the resident population of Ribble Valley, Lancashire, and the North West in 1997 and today (153218).
  Attached is a table showing the information requested for mid-1997 and mid-1999 which is the most recent year for which a population estimate is available.

  Estimated resident population mid-1997 and mid-19991

  Thousand

  Total population

  Population over 65

  1997

  1999

  1997

  1999

  North west

  6,884.6

  6,880.5

  1,018.0

  1,013.5

  Lancashire County

  1,134.5

  1,137.1

  177.1

  176.8

  Blackburn with Darwen UA

  139.4

  138.4

  17.8

  17.5

  Blackpool UA

  151.2

  150.0

  27.7

  27.1

  Ribble Valley

  53.0

  54.2

  8.6

  8.8

  Former County of Lancashire2

  1,425.1

  1,425.5

  222.6

  221.4

  1 Data refer to boundaries as defined in 1999 after local government reorganisation.

  2 The former county of Lancashire is the area covered by the current Lancashire county and the unitary authorities of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Crown Copyright 2000

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports have been published to date; and if he will list the six reports which give greatest concern to his Department. [153786]

  Mr. Rooker
  To date, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has published 86 reports on local authorities and two reports on DSS agencies. BFI inspections are tailored to the particular practices and needs of each authority. The resulting recommendations are unique to each authority so a direct comparison between authorities is not possible.
  717W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report on Wirral Metropolitan Council; and if he will make a statement. [153790]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 298W.

HEALTH

  Electronic Health Records
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timescale for implementation of electronic health records in the National Health Service; on what basis the final scheme will be chosen; if it will be funded entirely from existing NHS funds; and what benefits the electronic health record system is expected to bring to the National Health Service. [144702]

  Ms Stuart
  The target in "Information for Health" is for the implementation of a first-generation Electronic Health Record (EHR) by March 2005. The work currently being undertaken by the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme (ERDIP) and related initiatives will inform the decision-making process on whether a single or a number of solutions is the way forward.

  We are supporting the service in implementing the strategy, of which the EHR is a key component, with additional funding. Announcements over the last 12 months have increased, by £1,061 million, the amount that will be available to health authorities over the period April 2000 to March 2004 for information management and technology.

  "Information for Health" does not specifically describe the benefits of the EHR for patients and staff in isolation but rather as a mix of EHR and Electronic Patient Records (EPR) benefits. These can be summarised as:
  Convenience and confidence—through patients knowing health care professionals have access to their medical history;
  Integration of care—through improving the co-ordination of multi-professional and multi-agency care;
  Improving outcomes—through better decision-making based on up-to-date information;
  Using evidence—by integrating EPRs with other systems;
  Supporting analysis—for clinical governance and local planning;
  Improving efficiency—through reducing time spent collecting data and freeing more time for direct patient care.

  Sterilisation Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he has in the selection of registered authorised persons who monitor sterilisation services in the NHS; and what funding his Department gives them. [R] [143956]

  Mr. Denham
  The register of Authorised Persons (Sterilizers) AP(S) is maintained by the Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management who have delegated authority from the Department to do this. The Department retains ultimate responsibility through National Health Service Estates. To become registered as an AP(S), candidates must pass a 5-facet selection process, which includes examination and interview.
  718W
  Under the current arrangements NHS Trusts employ the services of the AP(S) directly and pay for this from their operational budgets. There are no central funding mechanisms in place for this service.

  NHS Estates has initiated a 5-yearly review of the current structure against a strategy of minimising risk for the NHS. This will include discussions with the NHS and industry and may result in revision of the existing structure and/or the development of a completely new infrastructure. The review will be completed later this year.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for admission to hospitals, including suspended patients but not including self-referred cases,(a) nationally, (b) in each health authority and (c) in each NHS trust in (i) 1987, (ii) 1992 and (iii) in each year since 1995. [149437]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Information from national health service trusts is not available for 1987 as they did not exist then.

  E.coli
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policies(a) to prevent E.coli outbreaks and (b) to ensure appropriate diagnosis and treatment of E.coli sufferers. [150312]

  Ms Stuart
  The E.coli bacterium of most concern is Vero cytotoxin-producing E.coli (VTEC) of which E.coli 0157 is the commonest.

  Many outbreaks of E.coli 0157 are foodborne and have been associated with various foods including contaminated meat and dairy products. We have a wide range of policies aimed at preventing outbreaks of foodborne disease. All of these contribute to preventing outbreaks of E.coli 0157 food poisoning. As well as comprehensive food hygiene legislation, examples of these policies include the clean livestock policy and butchers' licensing.

  E.coli 0157 outbreaks also occur from contact with farm animals or environments, including water, contaminated by animal faeces. The Chief Medical Officer issued health advice for farm visits by children last year, which was sent to all directors of public health and consultants in communicable disease control. Also in 2000, the Health and Safety Executive in collaboration with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food revised guidance to farmers, farm workers and teachers on avoiding ill health at open farms. Further information produced by Government is also given to vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, on how to avoid infection from various zoonotic diseases, including E.coli 0157. The Food Standards Agency has recently issued guidance on avoiding the risks from camping and picnicking on fields used for grazing animals.
  719W
  A Government task force on E.coli 0157 has recently been set up to deal with specific areas of interest and concern. Their first meeting in September 2000 on human health aspects discussed and proposed practical steps on diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and care, outbreak management, person-to-person spread and risk assessment. The group are expected to report a programme of practical steps later in the year that can be taken forward to further reduce the risk of infection from E.coli 0157.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has published guidelines dealing with sampling and identification procedures and requires its laboratories to test all stool samples for E.coli 0157. All laboratories voluntarily notify all infections as part of an agreed reporting protocol.

  In May 2000 the CMO's Update 26, which is distributed to all medical practitioners, carried an article "VTEC Guidance" which drew attention to the seasonal increase in infection, the risks from farm visits and the susceptibility of children to developing Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome (HUS) following infection with E.coli 0157.

  E.coli 0157 therapy is limited to supportive measures to maintain the body's fluid and electrolyte balance and monitoring for the development of HUS. Prescribing certain classes of antibiotics for E.coli infection may increase the risk of severe kidney disease and CMO Update 27 alerted medical practitioners to this in August 2000.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage take-up of prescription pre-payment certificates by patients who would benefit financially from so doing; [153067]

  (2) how many people purchased prescription pre-payment certificates for (a) a four month period and (b) a 12 month period in the last three years for which figures are available. [153066]

  Ms Stuart
  The information is not available in the format requested

  Information available about the number of pre-payment certificates (PPCs) purchased in England is in the table. The figures are estimates, rounded to the nearest 10,000, as some health authorities failed to return data in one or more of the years.

  Thousand

  PPCs

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  4 month

  500

  490

  550

  12 month

  300

  290

  330

  Health Benefits (Low-income Scheme)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated percentage level of take-up of the health benefits low-income scheme in the last three years for which figures are available. [153059]
  720W
  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is in the table.

  Thousand

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Claims received

  933

  865

  872

  Certificates issued for full help (HC2)

  570

  519

  528

  Certificates issued for limited help (HC3)

  324

  303

  293

  Note:

  The prescription pricing authority processes low-income scheme claims for Great Britain. The number for England has been estimated from a sample.

  Abuse in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to Government in each of the past three financial years of providing(a) services, (b) compensation and (c) criminal injuries compensation to victims of abuse in care. [153393]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Services provided to the victims of abuse may include counselling, sexual health screening, medical treatment and/or mental health treatment. We are not able to disaggregate the costs of providing these services to show whether or not the service-user in any case has been a victim of abuse in care.

  Information is not held centrally about compensation payments paid by central or local government in the last three years to individuals abused while in care.

  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority does not record its awards under a separate category of children abused while in care.

  Incontinence
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on(a) incontinence pads and (b) incontinence pants in each of the last three years. [153548]

  Mr. Hutton
  Incontinence pads and pants are supplied either through National Health Service bodies, or supplied directly to patients' homes. Where products are supplied through NHS bodies, the figures in the table are broken down into spend on pads and on pants.

  In respect of delivery to patients' homes, the breakdown between pads and pants is not held centrally.

  £ million

  April 1997 to March 1998

  April 1998 to March 1999

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Pads

  23.7

  25.7

  22.8

  Pants

  1.8

  2.5

  2.6

  Home delivery1

  22.1

  23.3

  25.3

  1 Pads and pants

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on incontinence appliances, with particular reference to bedding mats and creams, in each of the last three years. [153550]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures in the table show the National Health Service spend on incontinence appliances for the last three years. These appliances include urine drainage
  721W
  bags, bed pads, creams, incontinence sheaths and catheter valves. The figures exclude those appliances bought on prescription.

  £ million

  NHS spend on continence appliances

  April 1997 to March 1998

  7.2

  April 1998 to March 1999

  10.2

  April 1999 to March 2000

  10.6

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding will be allocated to the recruitment and retention of dentists under the NHS Plan in each of the next three years: and how many dentists were employed in the NHS from outside the UK in each of the last three years. [153738]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: Our strategy for modernising NHS dentistry was published in September 2000 "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan". In that publication we announced that £100 million would be invested in NHS dentistry by April 2002.

  This year we have made available £4 million through the Dental Care Development Fund to reimburse dentists who expand their practices and treat more NHS patients. We are considering the need for a similar scheme in 2001–02 when we will also make available up to £35 million to modernise NHS dental practices and make commitment to the NHS even more worthwhile for dentists.

  A new Commitment Payment Scheme was introduced from April 2000 to reward dentists in the General Dental Service for their past and present commitment. We plan to spend a sum in the order of £18 million for payments made to eligible dentists in England in respect of 2001–02. From April 2001 the scheme will be revised and enhanced; we expect the funding to be around £22 million in respect of payment due in 2001–02.

  We are discussing with the profession additional financial support for dentists to undertake clinical governance, which will include clinical audit and peer review, and to support continuing professional development.

  Information about the number of dentists working in the National Health Service who have come from outside the United Kingdom is available only for dentists in the General Dental Services in England and is given in the table.

  General dental service: Number of dentists by country of qualification at 30 September each year

  England

  Country of qualification

  1998

  1999

  2000

  United Kingdom

  14,765

  14,959

  15,061

  Total overseas

  2,199

  2,457

  2,656

  South Africa

  638

  774

  864

  Sweden

  433

  538

  630

  Irish Republic

  577

  542

  513

  722W

  General dental service: Number of dentists by country of qualification at 30 September each year

  England

  Country of qualification

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Australia

  173

  174

  171

  New Zealand

  125

  131

  133

  Denmark

  48

  58

  68

  Greece

  39

  47

  52

  Malaysia

  50

  50

  48

  Germany

  21

  28

  32

  Netherlands

  27

  29

  30

  Finland

  11

  15

  27

  Other countries

  57

  71

  88

  Total

  16,964

  17,416

  17,717

  Notes:

  1. Dentists are principals on a health authority list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2. Data exclude dentists whose title of registration is shown as Statutory Exams and those dentists awaiting entry.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (Ex-servicemen)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to hospital trusts when treating ex-servicemen who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. [154058]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have embarked on a radical programme of modernisation to improve access to effective treatment and care, reduce unfair variation, raise standards, and provide quicker and more convenient services across the spectrum of mental health services. The National Service Framework for mental health, published September. 1999, sets out general standards for treatment and care In addition, the Allen Report 1989 and "Planning for Major Incidents: the National Health Service guidance" 1998 were issued to help those involved in the provision of support for people with post-traumatic stress disorder to identify psycho-social support, and disseminate messages about good practice. There is also current guidance relevant to War Pensioners (Health Service Guidance (97) 31) which says:that the referral should make specific reference to the fact that the patient is a war pensioner and requires treatment for the condition(s) for which he was awarded a pension; and
  that war pensioners can use the NHS complaints system to resolve any alleged breakdowns in the arrangements for priority treatment (leading, ultimately, to the ombudsman).

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people will not require long-term care, who would otherwise have done so, as a result of the Government's intermediate care programme in the NHS Plan. [153836]

  Mr. Hutton
  Intermediate care is designed to promote independence, particularly for older people, who would otherwise face unnecessarily prolonged hospital stays or inappropriate admission to acute in-patient care, long-term residential care, or continuing National Health Service in-patient care. It is not possible to quantify precisely the number of people who will not require long-term care as a result of the development of intermediate care services following the NHS Plan. However, the initial evidence from several existing local schemes suggests a high success rate for short-term rehabilitation schemes set up
  723W
  with the aim of preventing or delaying admissions to long-stay residential care. The Department is currently considering proposals from a number of research teams for the evaluative research of intermediate care schemes nationally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Vocational Learning
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on vocational GCSEs. [152563]

  Mr. Wicks
  Vocational GCSEs will be introduced in September 2002. They are part of our programme to improve work-related opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds, so that those who want to can then go on to apprenticeships. The new system will raise the status of vocational study and bring schools, colleges and employers closer together.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the development of a qualifications ladder of vocational learning. [152570]

  Mr. Wicks
  The vocational ladder will offer young people wanting to follow programmes of vocational study a clear set of steps that will allow them to progress to further and higher study, as well a being relevant to work. We have introduced vocational A levels, are reforming and extending Modern Apprenticeships and are introducing Foundation Degrees. The new vocational GCSEs, to be available from September 2002, will provide a qualification of the same standard as academic GCSEs.

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the scope of his Department's responsibilities relating to constitutional reform, with special reference to the balance of parliamentary representation. [152564]

  Mr. Wills
  This Department is a member of one Cabinet committee and two sub-committees on constitutional reform, and may be invited to others as necessary. I am taking part in cross-party debates for young people run by the Citizenship Foundation, with devolved administration colleagues; the Prime Minister asked me personally to help foster a debate on what Britishness means in the 21st century. Other Departments are responsible for the balance of parliamentary representation.

  New Deal 50 plus
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guaranteed minimum income is available to those on New Deal 50-plus. [152565]

  Ms Jowell
  From April, eligible people who enter full time work are guaranteed a minimum income after deductions of £180 per week for up to 12 months. This consists of the national minimum wage paid by the employer and the Employment Credit of £60 per week paid by the Government. With effect from 1 October this 724W
  will increase to a guaranteed minimum income of £189 per week as a result of the previously announced rise to the minimum wage.

  Teacher Shortages
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the teacher shortage in Essex. [152566]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I congratulate Essex heads and teachers on maintaining normal timetables in their schools, despite recruitment difficulties in some areas. Latest figures (January 2000) show the Essex teacher vacancy rate as 1.7 per cent. We announced in the Budget that a further £200 million would be spent on teacher recruitment and retention.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations he has received from local education authorities in outer London about shortages of teachers in the last twelve months. [152584]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend receives frequent representations from outer London local education authorities on a wide range of issues.

  On 16 January, I met representatives of inner and outer London boroughs specifically to discuss teacher recruitment. Since that meeting my right hon. Friend has published his proposals for teachers' pay in 2001–02. These take particular account of the need to help local education authorities recruit and retain teachers, and include a proposal to increase the outer London weighting allowance by 30 per cent. He has also published a Green Paper, "Schools: building on success", containing proposals that will help recruit and retain teachers generally.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what impact the New Deal has had on training for employment of lone parents. [152568]

  Ms Hodge
  Since the New Deal for Lone Parents was introduced over 22,000 lone parents have benefited from help with training to improve their prospects of getting a job. Trained personal advisers can help find suitable work-related training that supports the work goals of the individual and takes into account their child care responsibilities. Lone parents also receive financial support to cover the costs. From April this year we will introduce a £15 weekly training premium on top of the existing help. And as we announced in the Budget, we will also introduce a self-employment option for lone parents similar to that which is available through the New Deal for 25 plus. We will also introduce greater flexibility to enable lone parents to take a wider range of intensive short work-focused courses.

  Barnsley College
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received regarding the funding of Barnsley College. [152569]
  725W
  Mr. Wicks
  We are well aware of Barnsley College's funding position. The Further Education Funding Council and the college are currently discussing the best approach to putting the college on a sound financial footing.

  Worcestershire
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to bring spending per pupil in Worcestershire closer to the national average; and if he will make a statement. [152571]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Green Paper on the future of local authority funding made it clear that we want to remove the worst of the disparities that affect counties like Worcestershire, by levelling up not down. We will be working on this over the coming months, with the aim of moving towards a new system in 2002–03.

  In the meantime, the Government continue to make substantial increases in the overall level of funding throughout the country.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in Exeter have benefited from the New Deal for Schools. [152572]

  Jacqui Smith
  Eight schools in the Exeter constituency have directly benefited from New Deal for Schools investment—Bradley Rowe Middle, Foxhayes First, Ladysmith Middle, Whipton Barton First, St. James' High, St. Luke's CE High. St. Peter's CE High and the Topsham School. In addition, 58 other schools outside of Exeter can be identified as having directly benefited from New Deal for Schools investment in Devon local education authority. A further 34 schools were included in packages which cannot be readily identified to individual schools from the Department's records.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have benefited from the New Deal for Schools; and what plans he has to increase spending in this area. [152559]

  Jacqui Smith
  Some 17,000 schools have so far benefited from allocations to individual projects under the New Deal for Schools programme. Over the next three years, we are investing £8.5 billion, as part of the biggest school building and repair programme in decades. This includes devolving over £1 billion direct to schools. It will enable 650 schools to be replaced or completely refurbished and major repair and improvement projects to be carried out at over 7,000 schools.

  Teacher Administration
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent meetings he has had with teachers' representatives to discuss the level of administration by teachers. [152573]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with teachers' representatives and we discuss a wide range of subjects, including our work to cut down the level of administration by teachers.

  Funding Formulae
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in reviewing the formulae for the funding of local education authorities. [152574]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We issued a Green Paper on Local Authority Funding on 19 September 2000 and consultation ended on 8 December. An analysis of consultation responses was published on 5 March on the DETR website at www.local.detr.gov.uk/greenpap/ analysis/index.htm. Copies of the analysis have also been placed in the Library. We will publish a White Paper on Local Government Finance later in the year. We will be working on a new formula for funding local education authorities over the coming months, with the aim of moving towards a new system in 2002–03.

  GCSEs
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Emloyment if he will make a statement on the trend in the percentage of pupils gaining five or more A* to C grade GCSEs since 1997. [152575]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The percentage of 15-year-old pupils gaining five or more A*-C grades at GCSE or the GNVQ equivalent has increased from 45.1 per cent. in 1996–97 to 49.2 per cent. in 1999–2000. The overall increase was four percentage points with an increase of at one percentage point in each of the intervening years. This shows that the figures are on track to reach the target of 50 per cent. by 2002.

  School Discipline
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on discipline in schools. [152576]

  Jacqui Smith
  We regularly meet representatives of the teacher associations and discipline is one of the issues discussed at these meetings.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' latest annual report shows that behaviour is good in three quarters of secondary schools and almost all primary schools, although he noted increasing levels of poor behaviour in the early years of secondary school. That is why we are providing record levels of funding—£174 million in 2001–02—a third more than this year and 10 times more than in 1996–97—to help schools and local education authorities tackle poor behaviour and provide education for excluded pupils.

  This is helping to pay for the 1,000 on-site Learning Support Units which take disruptive pupils out of the classroom quickly, improve their behaviour and reduce the need for exclusion. This network has been delivered a year ahead of the original target date.

  We are giving heads the full support they need to tackle disruptive and violent behaviour, including the use of exclusion where appropriate. We have clarified our exclusion guidance to emphasise that heads can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. And the new guidance for exclusion appeal panels makes clear that the head's decision should not be overridden in a range of circumstances including where there is violence or the threat of violence.
  727W
  Where an exclusion is necessary provision for excluded pupils is being greatly increased. There are over 1,000 more places and nearly 600 more teachers, instructors and education support staff at Pupil Referral Units compared with 1997. Planned LEA funding for PRUs increased by 13 per cent. this year compared with last, and we expect to see a 10 per cent. rise in the number of PRUs in 2001 compared with 2000. And by 2002 all local education authorities plan to provide a full timetable for excluded pupils.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent meetings he has had with teachers' representatives to discuss discipline in schools. [152587]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

  SEN (South Swindon)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to improve support for pupils with special needs in South Swindon. [152578]

  Jacqui Smith
  Swindon Local Education Authority has received in 2000–01 £807,309 from the DfEE's Standard Fund grants for special educational needs, inclusion and emotional and behavioural difficulties, social inclusion and access for post 16. Swindon LEA SEN budgets have increased in 2000–01 by £172,000 (3.46 per cent.) to £5,143,000 and special school delegated budgets by £376,000 (11.83 per cent.) to £3,584,000. £50 million is available nationally from the Schools Access Initiative for 2001–02 to support projects to make mainstream schools and the curriculum accessible to pupils in wheelchairs or with sensory impairments. Swindon LEA has been allocated £185,650 for community, foundation and voluntary controlled schools and £46,750 for voluntary aided schools.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the performance of and future plans for Employment Zones. [152579]

  Ms Jowell
  Employment Zones have been running only since April 2000 but are already getting substantial numbers of the hardest to help into work. The Government will build on this early success by extending the existing zones for an additional 12 months. Subject to satisfactory evaluation of the existing zones in the coming months the Government will consider extending Employment Zones to new areas and to other claimant groups, for example, lone parents.

  Disabled People
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards introducing comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. [152580]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 14W.

  Childminders
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to increase the supply of childminders. [152581]

  Ms Hodge
  On 15 June last year, I launched a £4.5 million start-up grant, to help provide up to 39,000 childminder places in 2000–01. The grant, supported by the European Social Fund (ESF), helps people starting out in childminding to meet some of the associated set-up costs. The childcare tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit helps more parents to use childminding services as it pays up to 70 per cent. of childminding fees. This has the effect of allowing childminders to use the increase in revenue to invest in their business and, therefore, of encouraging more people into childminding.

  Over the next three years, we have given Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships the target of setting up a minimum of 145,000 new childcare places with childminders across England by March 2004, a minimum of 25,000 of which will be in areas of disadvantage. These places will be in addition to those which partnerships would normally expect to create.

  To support partnerships in achieving these targets, we are making extensive new investment in increasing the supply of childminding reflecting the Government's determination to reverse the decline in numbers. This includes extending the childminder start-up grant by £17 million over the three years.

  We are also helping with infrastructure support for childminding by providing £11.25 million for the creation of 450 childminder networks over the next three years. Networks can encourage people to enter childminding and, by providing support, help to reduce childminder turnover.

  Last month I announced a new £3 million project, again supported by ESF moneys, to support new childminder networks in four disadvantaged areas helping teenage mothers stay in full time education and training.

  Complaints Procedures
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to introduce a school complaints system. [152582]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave my hon Friend on 4 May 2000,Official Report, column 186W. We believe that the majority of schools already have procedures in place for handling complaints, generally based on models provided by local education authorities and diocesan boards.

  Chris Woodhead
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Mr. Chris Woodhead ceased to be Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. [152583]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Universities
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future level of funding for universities. [152585]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last November increases of £412 million, £268 million and £298 million over 2001–02 to 2003–04 for higher education in England: between 1998–99 and 2003–04 the total additional funding will be over £1.7 billion. For the first time in over a decade the unit of funding per full-time equivalent student will increase in real terms in 2001–02 and expansion will be fully funded in the following two years.

  There is also additional funding for research. In July 2000 the Government announced £1 billion in funding for improvements in research infrastructure, available to institutions in 2002–03 and 2003–04. Universities will be able to bid for part of an extra £250 million provided by Office of Science and Technology for research into genomics, e-science and basic technology.

  Early Excellence Centre
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the early excellence centre programme. [152586]

  Ms Hodge
  The EEC programme is at the forefront of our policies to develop good practice in integrated care, education and family services. 29 centres are making a real difference to the lives of children and their families. On 27 February we announced the designation of six new centres and an additional £17 million to expand the programme. Working closely with Sure Start and Neighbourhood Nurseries, we will create up to 100 centres across the country by 2004.

  Disability Taskforce
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the disability taskforce report. [152588]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 14W.

  Central government capital investment in schools in Warrington local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  5,295

  1,189

  829

  2,389

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  534

  193

  90

  92

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  1,277

  207

  438

  505

  New Deal for Schools

  972

  1,083

  1,500

  2,776

  School Security Grant

  275

  66

  67

  67

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  62

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  218

  1,436

  442

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  401

  465

  670

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  27

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  152

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  1,438

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  149

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  20

  5

  9

  48

  Outside Toilets

  —

  56

  —

  —

  Secondary Support Learning Units

  —

  —

  —

  43

  Total

  8,373

  3,480

  4,861

  8,771

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to encourage small businesses to recruit long-term unemployed people from disadvantaged communities. [152561]

  Ms Jowell
  At least 275,000 long-term unemployed young people have already found work through the New Deal, the majority in small and medium sized businesses. From April this year we will pilot a new project called Recruit, a simplified employment subsidy for small and medium sized businesses which employ people from the New Deal in disadvantaged areas. Less bureaucracy, more people into jobs—that is our commitment to small employers and the unemployed.

  Nursery Places
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the new neighbourhood nurseries initiative will support the national childcare strategy. [152567]

  Ms Hodge
  The national childcare strategy aims to create 1 million new childcare places for 1.6 million children across the country by 2004. 45,000 additional places in up to 900 new or expanded neighbourhood nursery centres will also be created. These nurseries will be in the most disadvantaged areas of the country where many families cannot presently access high quality childcare. The places created should be in well-designed buildings and sustainable over time, meeting childcare needs now and in the future.

  New Classrooms
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new classrooms have been created in the Warrington, North constituency; and which schools have received them since 1997. [149484]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Figures on the number of new classrooms created are not readily available. I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 27 June 2000, Official Report, columns 472–74W, for details of specific allocations made to schools in the Warrington, North constituency. The table shows the total capital investment made in schools in Warrington local education authority since 1997–98.
  731W
  Warrington local education authority was established in 1998. Figures shown for 1997–98 are for Cheshire local education authority, which included Warrington at that time.

  Schools Funding (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the additional resources he has made available to schools in Stroud since 1997 according to sector; under which(a) scheme and (b) funds they are provided; and if he will make a statement. [152178]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to him on 16 February by the Secretary of State concerning increases in funding that the Government have made available to Gloucestershire local education authority since 1996–97.

  Information showing the schools in the Stroud constituency, which benefited under the New Deal for Schools, is shown in Table A. These allocations formed

  Table A: New Deal for Schools—Allocation to schools in the Stroud constituency

  Year/school

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Dursley CE Primary

  Provision of inside toilets and hall; improvement to staff facilities/security; rewiring

  1435,000

  1998–99

  Rodborough Community Primary

  Maintenance and improvement works, including replacement of HORSA classrooms

  285,452

  Cam House Special

  Remodelling/refurbishment of science provision and urgent maintenance works

  118,104

  Park Infant

  Maintenance and improvement works, including replacement HORSA classrooms

  233,560

  Slimbridge Primary

  Maintenance and improvement works, including replacement of HORSA unit

  181,012

  1999–2000

  Saul CE Primary

  Replacement of prefabricated mobile classroom

  94,191

  Cam House Special

  Provision of science facilities, classroom and window refurbishment

  229,684

  Dursley CE Primary

  Removal of asbestos materials

  2323,381

  Rodborough Community Primary

  Saul CE Primary

  Archway

  Bisley Blue Coat CE Primary

  Provision of fire alarm systems

  2318,263

  Cam Woodfield Infants

  Cashes Green Primary

  Coaley CE Primary

  Kings Stanley Infants

  Randwick CE Primary

  Saul CE Priamry

  Sheepscombe Primary

  Uley CE Primary

  Callowell Primary

  Fire precaution upgrade works

  2395,089

  Cashes Green Primary

  Dursley CE Primary

  Eastcombe Primary

  Eastington Primary

  Kings Stanley Junior

  Longney CE Primary

  Slimbridge Primary

  Whiteshill Primary

  Cam Woodfield Infant

  Berkeley Vale

  Cam House Special

  2000–01

  Archway

  Replacement of four temporary classrooms

  423,568

  Sapperton CE Primary

  732W
  part of the £12.482 million investment made so far in schools in Gloucestershire local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

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

  In total, since 1997, Gloucestershire local education authority has received some £54.887 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in Table B.

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

  733W

  Table A: New Deal for Schools—Allocations to schools in the Stroud constituency

  Year/school

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  Woodchester Endowed CE Primary

  Part of package to replace heating boilers

  21,099,238

  Berkeley Vale Community

  Stroud High

  Rednock

  Removal and replacement of asbestos building materials

  2503,438

  Eastcombe Primary

  Uley CE Primary

  Marley

  Provision of joint music facility for both schools

  572,772

  Stroud High

  Callowell Primary

  Provision electrical fire alarm systems

  2269,651

  Cam Everlands Primary

  Cashes Green Primary

  Dursley CE Primary

  Rodborough Community Primary

  Sharpness Primary

  The Thrupp

  Berkeley Vale Community

  St. Dominic's RC Primary

  Electrical re-wiring and cross bonding

  2253,294

  St. Josephs RC Primary

  The Rosary RC Primary

  Maidenhill

  Cam Everlands Primary

  Fire Precaution upgrading works

  2407,475

  Cam Woodfield Infant

  Cashes Green Primary

  Dursley CE Primary

  Eastington Primary

  Park Infant

  Park Junior

  Rodborough Community Primary

  St. Dominic's RC Primary

  Whiteshill Primary

  Berkeley Vale Community

  Thomas Keble

  Cam House Special

  1 Denotes total allocations made to projects in Phase 1 of the New Deal for Schools programme. Gloucestershire local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at this school.

  2 Denotes total allocations made to package projects covering more than one school. Gloucestershire local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools in the Stroud constituency which benefited from these allocations

  Table B: Central Government capital investment in schools in Gloucestershire local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  Basic Credit Approvals

  6,837

  2,858

  7,158

  10,399

  27,252

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  166

  541

  362

  919

  1,988

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  387

  233

  451

  1,086

  2,157

  New Deal for Schools

  435

  1,676

  3,625

  6,746

  12,482

  School Security Grant

  117

  147

  201

  201

  666

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  181

  564

  559

  1,304

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  750

  586

  2,008

  3,344

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  92

  —

  92

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  314

  314

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  416

  —

  —

  416

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  103

  —

  —

  103

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  4,346

  4,346

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  319

  319

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Total

  7,946

  6,905

  13,039

  26,997

  54,887

  Students Fund
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants from the Students Fund for 2001–02 are still to be announced; and if he will make a statement. [152482]
  734W
  Mr. Wicks
  The total amount of funding which the Government are making available through the higher education Hardship Fund in 2001–02 is £93.3 million, 6 per cent. higher than in 2000–01. The total includes funding for fee waivers for part-time students, bursaries for student parents and Opportunity Bursaries. Within the
  735W
  total. resources for higher education students in further education institutions have been almost doubled to just under £5 million.

  Learner Support Funds for 16 to 19-year-old students, including general further education Access Funds, residential funding for students in specialist colleges and support for students in school sixth forms, will total £47.4 million in 2001–02, representing a 9 per cent. increase year on year. Support for students aged 19+ through these funds, including resources for child care support, will be £67 million in 2001 –02, representing an increase of over 20 per cent. year on year.

  Notification of allocations from the Hardship Fund to higher education institutions will be made this month. Allocations of Learner Support Funds and the Hardship Fund will be notified to further education institutions at the beginning of April.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on faith schools. [152555]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As our recent Green Paper says, we wish to welcome more faith schools within the publicly funded sector of education, where there is clear local demand from parents and the community. Schools with a strong sense of identity and a distinctive ethos, like

  South Tyneside

  Per pupil funding £

  Cash

  Cash

  Cash

  Primary 5–10

  Secondary 11–15

  Schools 5–15

  SSA

  Grants

  Total per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total Per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Total Per pupil

  1996–97

  2,010

  40

  2,050

  2,680

  30

  2,710

  2,300

  30

  2,340

  1997–98

  2,120

  40

  2,160

  2,780

  40

  2,820

  2,410

  40

  2,450

  1998–99

  2,230

  70

  2,300

  2,900

  60

  2,960

  2,530

  60

  2,590

  1999–2000

  2,360

  150

  2,510

  3,020

  110

  3,130

  2,660

  130

  2,790

  2000–01

  2,470

  300

  2,760

  3,180

  220

  3,400

  2,800

  260

  3,060

  2001–02

  2,580

  tba

  —

  3,310

  tba

  —

  2,930

  tba

  —

  Per pupil funding £

  Real terms 1990–2000 prices

  Real terms 1999–2000 prices

  Real terms 1999–2000 prices

  Primary 5–10

  Secondary 11–15

  Schools 5–15

  SSA

  Grants

  Per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Per pupil

  SSA

  Grants

  Per pupil

  1996–97

  2,180

  40

  2,220

  2,900

  30

  2,930

  2,500

  40

  2,530

  1997–98

  2,230

  40

  2,280

  2,930

  40

  2,960

  2,540

  40

  2,580

  1998–99

  2,290

  70

  2,360

  2,970

  60

  3,030

  2,590

  60

  2,650

  1999–2000

  2,360

  150

  2,510

  3,020

  110

  3,130

  2,660

  130

  2,790

  2000–01

  2,430

  290

  2,720

  3,120

  210

  3,340

  2,750

  250

  3,010

  2001–02

  2,470

  tba

  —

  3,180

  tba

  —

  2,810

  tba

  —

  Note:

  Real terms calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 7 March 2001.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  Teachers' Morale
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on trends in teachers' morale since the appointment of the new Chief Inspector of Schools. [153010]
  736W
  faith schools, tend to be valued by parents. The faith schools in my hon. Friend's constituency are the following:

  St. John's Catholic Infant School

  St. John's Catholic Junior School

  Christ the King Catholic Primary School

  St. Peter's CE Primary School

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  St. Mary's CE Primary School.

  I welcome the valuable contribution they make to pupils' development and to the Wirral community of schools.

  Funding (South Shields and South Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the SSA per(a) primary school and (b) secondary school was, in real terms. for South Tyneside in each year since 1996; [152783]

  (2) what the average funding allocation was per school age child in the Borough of South Tyneside in each year since 1996. [152785]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The information requested is in the tables. They show that between 1996–97 and 1997–98 total funding in South Tyneside increased by £50 per pupil in real terms. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01 South Tyneside's funding per pupil has increased by £430 per pupil in real terms. Grant figures have not yet been finalised for 2001–02, so no comparable figure is available for that year.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department has not attempted to measure the effect on teachers' morale of the appointment of HM Chief Inspectors of Schools. My right hon. Friend and I are happy to put on record our support for the teaching profession and our recognition of the hard work of teachers in raising standards in our schools.

  School Computers (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many computers there are in schools in Wansbeck; and how many there were in 1997. [153146]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department does not collect details about the numbers of school computers held in individual constituencies. Data from the Department's Survey of information and communications technology in Schools 1996 are given, as the survey was performed bi-annually until 1998. The comparable survey in 2000 shows that the numbers of computers in schools in England has increased as shown in the following table:

  Sector

  March 1996

  March 2000

  1 Primary

  13.0

  17.8

  Secondary

  95.9

  112.6

  Special

  19.0

  66.5

  The ratio of computers to pupils since 1996 has improved as follows:

  Sector

  March 1996

  March 2000

  2 Primary

  1:19

  1:12.6

  Secondary

  1:9

  1:7.9

  Special

  1:4

  1:3.7

  Teachers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of(a) part-time teachers, (b) teachers recruited from overseas and (c) supply teachers employed by Lancashire Education Authority in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [153155]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Part-time teachers and qualified short-term supply teachers on contracts of under one month employed in the maintained schools sector in Lancashire local authority are as follows:

  January

  Part-time teachers (headcount)

  Supply teachers 1

  1997

  1,690

  560

  1998

  1,760

  510

  1999

  1,880

  400

  2000

  1,850

  510

  1 Supply teachers employed for a full day on the day of the count. Supply teachers on contracts of one month or more cannot be separately identified from teachers in regular service and are not included in the table.

  Note:

  All numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10

  Teachers recruited from overseas are not collected centrally. Teacher numbers for January 2001 are not yet available.

  £

  Gloucestershire SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Oxfordshire SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Essex SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Funding per 5–15 pupil (cash)

  1990–91

  1,710

  —

  —

  1,740

  —

  —

  1,760

  —

  —

  1991–92

  1,960

  —

  —

  2,010

  —

  —

  2,030

  —

  —

  1992–93

  2,080

  —

  —

  2,140

  —

  —

  2,190

  —

  —

  738W
  The Local Government Reorganisation affected Lancashire on 1 April 1998. From this date, Lancashire split to become three authorities: Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. The figures in the table for 1999 and 2000 are the addition of the three new authorities.

  The number of regular teachers (ie excluding short-term supply) in maintained schools in England increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to he teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

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

  Educational Schemes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each school in England and Wales to which(a) the Pupil Learning Credits Scheme, (b) the National Grid for Learning, (c) Excellence in Cities and (d) the Learning Mentors Scheme applies, indicating in each case, for each school, (i) the parliamentary constituency in which the school is situated, (ii) the number of pupils who will benefit from the scheme and (iii) the value of the scheme for each school. [153278]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year since the Area Cost Adjustment was introduced the amount of standard spending assessment for each pupil in(a) Gloucestershire, (b) Oxfordshire and (c) Essex; and if he will make a statement on the reviews of ACA which have taken place or are currently taking place. [153387]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table gives the data requested from when the SSA system began in 1990–91.

  The Green Paper on the future of local authority funding makes it clear that we want to remove the worst of the disparities that exist, including those caused by the Area Cost Adjustment. Our aim is to level up not down. We will be working on this over the coming months, with the aim of moving Towards a new system in 2002–03.

  The table shows that between 1997–98 and 2000–01, funding per pupil in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and Essex has increased by well over £300 in real terms. There will be further increases at national level in funding following the Year 2000 Spending Review and the recent Budget announcement: a further £420 per pupil over the three-year period, taking the total increase to nearly £750 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  739W

  £

  Gloucestershire SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Oxfordshire SSA

  Grants

  Total

  Essex SSA

  Grants

  Total

  1993–94

  2,120

  —

  —

  2,230

  —

  —

  2,260

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2,140

  —

  —

  2,260

  —

  —

  2,330

  —

  —

  1995–96

  2,110

  —

  —

  2,220

  —

  —

  2,280

  —

  —

  1996–97

  2,190

  —

  —

  2,270

  —

  —

  2,360

  —

  —

  1997–98

  2,250

  20

  2,270

  2,320

  40

  2,350

  2,400

  20

  2,420

  1998–991

  2,360

  30

  2,390

  2,450

  50

  2,500

  2,530

  30

  2,550

  1999–2000

  2,470

  100

  2,570

  2,560

  110

  2,670

  2,630

  90

  2,720

  2000–01

  2,580

  230

  2,800

  2,690

  210

  2,900

  2,760

  190

  2,950

  2001–02

  2,680

  —

  —

  2,840

  —

  —

  2,900

  —

  —

  Real terms 1999–2000 prices

  1990–91

  2,250

  —

  —

  2,280

  —

  —

  2,310

  —

  —

  1991–92

  2,420

  —

  —

  2,490

  —

  —

  2,510

  —

  —

  1992–93

  2,490

  —

  —

  2,560

  —

  —

  2,620

  —

  —

  1993–94

  2,470

  —

  —

  2,600

  —

  —

  2,640

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2,460

  —

  —

  2,600

  —

  —

  2,670

  —

  —

  1995–96

  2,360

  —

  —

  2,480

  —

  —

  2,550

  —

  —

  1996–97

  2,380

  —

  —

  2,450

  —

  —

  2,560

  —

  —

  1997–98

  2,370

  30

  2,390

  2,440

  40

  2,480

  2,520

  20

  2,540

  1998–991

  2,410

  30

  2,450

  2,510

  50

  2,560

  2,590

  30

  2,610

  1999–2000

  2,470

  100

  2,570

  2,560

  110

  2,670

  2,630

  90

  2,720

  2000–01

  2,530

  220

  2,760

  2,640

  210

  2,850

  2,710

  190

  2,900

  2001–02

  2,570

  —

  —

  2,720

  —

  —

  2,780

  —

  —

  1 Prior to the local government reorganisation in 1998–99, Essex included Southend on Sea and Thurrock. The figures for 1997–98 are based on an apportionment for Essex across the three constituent authorities

  Notes:

  1. Comparable grant information is not available prior to 1997–98: all grants for 2001–02 have not yet been allocated

  2. The SSA figures make no allowances for changes in SSA methodology since 1990–91

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10

  4. Real term figures calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 7 March 2001

  Targeted Capital Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications he has received for the Targeted Capital Fund; how much in total has been applied for; when he expects to announce the allocations; and if he will make a statement. [153535]

  Jacqui Smith
  Proposals for a total of 208 projects seeking support from the Targeted Capital Fund have been received from 116 local education authorities. The total value of the proposals submitted is £299 million. We are currently appraising these proposals, and I aim to make an announcement before the end of this month.

  Proposals to be supported will be funded as part of the £8.5 billion investment programme in school buildings over the next three years. Most of this funding is being allocated according to needs-related formulae, rather than in response to bids. This funding is in addition to more than £5 billion capital invested since 1997. Capital funding this year at over £2 billion is more than three times the £683 million spent on schools capital in 1996–97.

  Grammar Schools
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria are used by grammar 740W
  schools to select pupils; and what consideration is given to children's performance in the national curriculum when selecting such pupils. [153720]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Admission authorities for grammar schools are responsible for setting their own arrangements for selecting pupils. Some allocate places on the basis of rank order of merit in the entrance test; others set a pass mark for the test and, if more children achieve the pass mark than there are places available, normal oversubscription criteria (for example siblings, distance) are used to allocate the places. Some admission authorities review cases of children who have marginally failed to reach the required standard in the test, taking account of head teachers' recommendations and school reports, which are likely to include reference to performance in the National Curriculum.

  School Clubs and Holiday Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) after school club places and (b) holiday playscheme places there were (i) in 1996 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available in (A) London and (B) each London borough. [152200]

  Ms Hodge
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 March 2001, c. 561–62W]: The wrong table was printed. The correct table is as follows.
  741W

  Number of providers in out of school clubs and holiday schemes and number of places

  1996

  2000

  Out of school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  Out of school clubs

  Holiday schemes

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  Providers

  Places

  London

  432

  14,404

  899

  50,694

  768

  34,318

  2,462

  124,977

  Inner London

  239

  9,343

  387

  16,561

  452

  24,114

  1,046

  57,751

  City of London

  1

  50

  1

  52

  6

  280

  12

  520

  Camden

  30

  1,046

  71

  1,656

  31

  1,078

  141

  7,267

  Hackney

  1—

  1—

  22

  600

  19

  900

  13

  1,320

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  18

  560

  2

  40

  9

  175

  64

  1,605

  Haringey

  27

  1,120

  18

  1,686

  32

  1,504

  80

  5,654

  Islington

  44

  1,411

  82

  1,587

  57

  3,890

  70

  3,470

  Kensington and Chelsea

  18

  639

  47

  2,528

  15

  1,004

  50

  3,667

  Lambeth

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  37

  1,214

  22

  803

  Lewisham

  26

  983

  4

  290

  28

  930

  22

  1,039

  Newham

  13

  238

  27

  844

  30

  1,238

  262

  14,894

  Southwark

  24

  1,058

  20

  1,129

  70

  5,158

  124

  4,912

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  58

  3,664

  31

  1,161

  Wandsworth

  21

  1,181

  39

  3,215

  30

  1,245

  73

  5,614

  Westminster

  17

  1,057

  54

  2,934

  30

  1,834

  82

  5,825

  Outer London

  193

  5,061

  512

  34,133

  316

  10,204

  1,416

  67,226

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  120

  14

  1,154

  8

  258

  91

  4,522

  Barnet

  9

  244

  46

  2,403

  19

  675

  120

  7,265

  Bexley

  4

  180

  6

  550

  5

  128

  32

  2,131

  Brent

  16

  480

  43

  2,150

  26

  567

  72

  2,298

  Bromley

  8

  266

  20

  1,641

  14

  422

  73

  4,022

  Croydon

  14

  610

  21

  825

  23

  1,022

  113

  6,405

  Ealing

  20

  600

  37

  628

  31

  699

  70

  2,478

  Enfield

  13

  1—

  32

  1—

  29

  928

  165

  7,643

  Greenwich

  2

  70

  1—

  1—

  31

  1,748

  27

  912

  Harrow

  15

  418

  66

  1—

  9

  352

  53

  2,743

  Havering

  7

  91

  14

  253

  5

  170

  33

  1,953

  Hillingdon

  8

  128

  20

  1,285

  12

  206

  52

  2,414

  Hounslow

  22

  836

  26

  7,316

  25

  745

  60

  2,097

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  13

  1—

  1—

  1—

  23

  653

  102

  4,799

  Merton

  9

  288

  65

  3,090

  11

  351

  77

  2,701

  Redbridge

  5

  112

  16

  10,176

  11

  366

  72

  3,417

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  14

  407

  50

  2,197

  16

  472

  85

  5,307

  Sutton

  9

  211

  17

  465

  5

  64

  86

  2,936

  Waltham Forest

  1—

  1—

  19

  1—

  13

  378

  33

  1,183

  1Not provided by the authority

  Note:

  Holiday scheme figures prior to 1998 may not be directly comparable to 2000 because of charges in the instructions given to providers for recording places in 1999.
  742W

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Developing Countries: Labour Standards
Baroness Whitakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are helping to support International Labour Organisation core labour standards in developing countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government support core labour standards in developing countries in a number of ways: through bilateral partnerships, for example, addressing child labour and bonded labour; through the private sector by supporting ethical trade and socially responsible business initiatives; and by supporting and strengthening the work of civil society organisations in developing countries. The Department for International Development also works directly with the ILO, providing help to implement the declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work which define core labour standards.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that, for the first time in its 81-year history, the ILO has urged its members to take action in respect of Burma's use of forced labour, including alleged rape, beatings and sending porters out to test minefields? Can she further tell us what is the response of Her Majesty's Government to the ILO decision?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the ILO's decision. The Government have consistently taken a strong line in the ILO for action against Burma. We supported the decision of the international labour conference to invoke Article 33 of the constitution which, as my noble friend knows, was unprecedented in the ILO's history. It is a serious indictment of the Burmese Government's appalling human rights record. That government actively discourage UK business, other governments and international bodies from having direct contact with the Burmese regime.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the majority of funding for the ILO comes from the Department for Education and Employment, but increasingly it is coming from DfID. Can the Minister tell the House why DfID is now paying more of the Government's share? Furthermore, can the Government be confident
982
that the ILO directly contributes to a reduction in poverty as required under the International Development Bill?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is quite right. The Department for Education and Employment takes the lead responsibility for liaison with the International Labour Organisation. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that the Government have been working actively to integrate activities across a range of areas. Since 1997 the Department for International Development has committed over £9 million to the ILO, mainly for the elimination of child labour. We are discussing a further four-year partnership. I can assure the noble Baroness that these activities are entirely in line with our priority of eliminating poverty across the world.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about support for the ILO. Is my noble friend aware that what lies at the heart of the problem are countries which have an antipathy to multi-party democracy and to the working of free markets? If that changed then many activities of the ILO would no longer be necessary.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that in the Globalisation White Paper published by the Government at the end of last year, we did a very careful analysis of globalisation and the impact that markets would have on assisting the development of countries in the developing world. We are well aware that it is important to have strong economic as well as development activity, which is funded through organisations such as the Department for International Development, if we are to meet our targets with respect to eliminating world poverty.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when the Minister mentions our wish to do away with child labour, does she appreciate that in many countries families rely upon the income from those children? How can she reconcile that and what can be done to help? She mentions that this money is intended for that purpose. How can it be used to reduce, or improve, at least, the conditions under which children work, even if it does not do away totally with child labour?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working in a number of areas which address the issue that the noble Baroness has raised. Yes, we are aware of the difficulty that exists in a number of families where the unpaid or paid labour of children is absolutely essential for the survival of those families. We are working to ensure that the very worst forms of forced labour are eliminated. We are working through our bilateral programmes in a number of countries to try to improve the economic conditions of families through programmes such as micro-credit schemes. In our education programmes in a number of countries we

983
are trying to improve the access and quality of basic and primary education. So that that will be another route out of poverty.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, UN conventions are all very well, but there are many poor countries which simply do not have the apparatus in place for implementing such conventions, and sometimes not even to implement legislation. I speak from my experience in Nepal. Can the Minister confirm that her department is supporting non-governmental organisations, which are the only bodies sufficiently equipped to implement the conventions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is quite right. In a number of countries the appropriate infrastructure does not exist. The noble Earl will be aware that we are working on this matter through a number of agencies in Nepal and that we have made recommendations to the government of that country. I agree with the noble Earl that the role of NGOs is extremely important.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether she is satisfied with the links established between the ILO and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? For example, last year the ILO World Conference passed certain strictures on slavery in Sudan. How are such decisions fed into the proceedings of the UN Commission on Human Rights which are about to begin?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been working extremely hard to ensure that all the different parts of the international system are well co-ordinated. Certainly, in the preparatory meetings which take place before the main meetings commence, relevant decisions which have been taken by, for example, the International Labour Organisation conference, would then be fed into a meeting relevant to the UN Commission on Human Rights. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that in all our dealings with the international system, we try to ensure that that co-ordination takes place. We do not want to see a number of different agencies working independently rather than joining together and pooling their resources.

Teenage Pregnancies
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will study the progress made in the state of Illinois in reducing the incidence of teenage pregnancies, including Project Reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, our teenage pregnancy programme is based on evidence of what is likely to be most effective. We are aware of abstinence programmes in the United States,
984
including Project Reality. However, a recent expert review found no robust evidence that these programmes are effective.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that, not only in the state of Illinois but throughout the United States, young people are receiving the message that it is in their own interests to abstain from sexual relations until marriage? Has this not had a marked effect on reducing teenage pregnancies and abortions? Is there not a strong case for putting in place similar programmes in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have studied a paper produced by the Resource Centre for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention in the United States. It undertook a review of the published studies in this area. The centre found that only a limited number of studies were sufficiently robust to stand up to analysis. Indeed, the only study sufficiently robust to enable a comparison to be made between one approach and another found that the programme did not delay adolescent sexual activity. Like many noble Lords, we are concerned about the level of teenage pregnancy in this country. An important part of our own programme is a strategy to help young people to resist having sex before they are ready. However, the strategy also involves helping teenagers to understand and avoid the risks of unprotected and uninformed sex. I believe that a rounded programme in this area is likely to be more effective.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when a teenage girl finds that she is expecting a baby, it is important that she is able to gain access to advice about the options open to her? Can the Minister say whether the forthcoming Adoption Bill will contain measures to ensure that girls receive advice not simply about abortion, but also about the opportunities for adoption?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised an important point. I agree with him that young girls in that situation should have access to a range of advice so that they can make informed choices. I would wish to see that all is done to ensure that that is the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to offer so freely to girls who have become sexually active at such an early age the morning-after pill, either through school or over the counter at a local pharmacy, is a policy of despair?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. We have debated this matter thoroughly and at length in your Lordships' House. The fact is that in the event that a young woman wishes to seek emergency contraception, the rules that have been approved by this House allow for professional advice to be given. Ultimately, faced with the prospect of an unwanted

985
pregnancy and the availability of emergency contraception, I believe that such contraception should be made available.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the efforts being made to delay adolescent sexual activity, everything possible should be done to improve the sense of self-esteem of young people through education, meaningful youth activity and so forth?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Earl. Such efforts should move alongside a rounded approach to sexual health and education. That is why the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, developed by this Government, is very much concerned with taking a holistic view of these matters.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister expand on his address to the Pharmaceutical Service's Association committee dinner, at which he was the guest speaker? He said that he would like all pharmacies to contain an area for private consultation. Can he reconcile that comment with his statement of a moment ago that opportunities for confidential consultation were already available?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware that I said that confidential booths were available in every pharmacy. However, it is certainly my hope that, with the introduction of local pharmaceutical services, we can put in place an incentive programme that will encourage community pharmacies to install private consultation areas. Having seen some community pharmacies introduce them, I am sure that that is the best way forward. It will enable us to Look to community pharmacists to give even more advice to the public.
Lord Rea: My Lords, has the Department of Health paid due attention to the sex education programmes in the Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands, which have the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. Another contrast between this country and the Scandinavian countries—perhaps I may mention the Netherlands in particular—
A noble Lord: That is not a Scandinavian country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was not allowed to take O-level geography—your Lordships will understand why! One point to note about countries that are more successful in this area is that they have had very proactive sex education programmes. Also—this is why I was about to raise the issue of the Netherlands—young people in some of those countries seem much more willing to discuss sex and health education matters with their parents. I am keen to see parents in this country encouraged to do
986
the same. It is a great disappointment that the research suggests that fewer than a quarter of the young people in the UK talk with their mother about sexual relationships, and only 10 per cent with their father. It would be a jolly good thing if we could do better than that.

Iraq: Aerial Bombardment
3.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refrain from taking part in further aerial bombardment of Iraq unless authorised by the United Nations.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, our position is unchanged. The no-fly zones were established in 1991 for the north and in 1992 for the south in support of UN SCR 688. They are justified under international law in response to a situation of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. Coalition pilots take action only in self-defence. If Iraq stopped trying to kill our pilots, there would be no further confrontation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we all share her hopes that confrontation of this sort will cease to be general? Unfortunately, however, it is a fact that a large number of civilians have been killed by aerial bombardment since 1945. I am glad to hear from my noble friend, if I understand her correctly, that this country will not be taking any further part in such proceedings.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really must disabuse my noble friend of his conclusion. We know that some of the claims made by Iraq in relation to civilian casualties are grossly exaggerated. It was recently claimed that there had been 30 civilian casualties when we were not dropping any ordnance at all; on some of those occasions coalition planes were not even flying.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, from these Benches we have consistently supported the Government on the Iraqi sanctions policy and the no-fly zones. However, does the Minister consider that the time may have come for a reconsideration at least of the sanctions policy, in view of the fact that we are now seeing the authority of the United Nations being steadily undermined and there is growing support among moderate Arab leaders for Saddam Hussein, which is deeply regrettable? Is there any prospect of an inspection regime being re-mounted, given that since the beginning of last year there has been no inspection and there are troubling indications that Iraq may again be building up weapons of mass destruction?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right when she stresses the importance of our pursuing the issue of weapons of

987
mass destruction. The incoming United States administration is looking at the position in a number of respects. What we are all aiming to do is to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are kept as far away as possible from the Iraqi regime. That is what our major effort has to be aimed at. The noble Baroness is right when she talks about sanctions: at the same time as trying to tighten the control in relation to weapons of mass destruction, we constantly look for ways to lighten the burden of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis with whom we have no quarrel whatever.
When the regime in Iraq is able to import 38,000 bottles of whisky and 300 million cigarettes every month, it makes one wonder just how credible the claims are about sanctions being the problem rather than the regime.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend have any reliable information about civilian casualties in Iraq? There must have been some, because it is not possible to have a bombing campaign without inflicting some civilian casualties. Will she also tell the House why our EU partners seem unwilling to continue to support the action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no definitive figures to give to my noble friend. However, if I may, I shall send her a list of occasions when there have been claims about civilian casualties when we know those claims to have been palpably untrue. Of course, any military action is never without risk, and we are always deeply sorry about any civilian casualties. But I must stress, as I have done on a number of occasions in this House, that the bombing that takes place is the result of trying to defend our own pilots.
So far as concerns the EU, I hope that my noble friend will be pleased to know that the policy is discussed both bilaterally and within the framework of the EU. Since we had the opportunity of explaining why we undertook the bombing last month—that is, because we had come under attack more times in January than we had in the whole of last year—I think the degree of understanding has been very much greater.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the Iraqi regime is piling up huge oil revenues and continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, that same regime is cutting the daily food ration for the people of Iraq and cutting medical supplies all the time? Far from easing the pressures on Saddam Hussein and this dreadful regime, do we not need to devise new and better targeted pressures to counter his evil efforts, and to work closely with the American authorities who are developing new ideas in this field? Are we so working?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we are aware that the new administration is not so much reviewing but assessing the position, as any incoming
988
administration is bound to do. Of course we are in close touch with our closest allies on this issue, as the noble Lord would expect us to be. However, we must look carefully at making sure that any changes are targeted at the weapons of mass destruction in the way he indicated. Perhaps I may remind those who say that sanctions are the problem that the sanctions are the same throughout Iraq, but in those parts of Iraq which are not controlled by Baghdad—I am thinking particularly of the Kurds in the north of Iraq—for example, school rolls are rising, as opposed to in the rest of the country where they are falling; health indicators are improving; and infant mortality rates are lower than before sanctions were imposed. I think those examples indicate that it is not the sanctions that are the problem; it is the hideous regime.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend place a copy of the information in the Library?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the point is often made that we do not allow enough time for the fourth Question. I think it would be appropriate if we moved on now.

Alcohol-related Attacks aboard Aircraft
3.29 p.m.
Viscount Falklandasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to protect airline staff and the travelling public from the dangers of violent attacks resulting from alcohol abuse.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, we have worked closely with airlines and the police in recent years. Airlines have taken steps to prevent intoxicated passengers boarding, to provide more information on the effects of alcohol at altitude and to limit the amount of alcohol served. The Government are considering legislation to strengthen existing police powers in dealing with drunkennness on aircraft, and are currently consulting on whether passengers should be able to drink their own alcohol on board aircraft.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I had prepared a slightly different supplementary question because I thought that another Minister would be answering. However, as I was deputy chairman for some 10 years of the alcohol misuse body in Parliament, I am used to rather "dickering about" at the edges of alcohol abuse in our society. On this particular issue, does the Minister agree that there must be some kind of technology available that the airlines could use to screen either those who have an identifiable alcohol problem, or that small minority who travel and are prepared to abuse the freedoms that they enjoy, regardless of

989
anyone else? Apart from separating passengers from their alcohol during the flight, which he mentioned, surely there is some way of screening such people before they board an aircraft. Most of the other passengers who experience such situations can easily identify those who should never be put on the flight in the first place.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there has been no active consideration of the possibility of breathalysing, passengers before they board an aircraft. However, in our air transportation consultation document, The Future of Aviation, we asked the industry for its views on whether there should be limitations on passengers drinking their own alcohol on board. We hope to have those views collected and in hand by 12th April.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can I draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to the excellent report of our Select Committee into the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis, and the evidence that emerged showing that the free availability of alcohol on airlines could be a contributory cause? My noble friend says that the industry is actively considering limiting the amount of alcohol available. Will he also bear in mind that the Select Committee recommended that an inter-departmental committee—indeed, the Minister has mentioned it—should look into the whole situation? It is not merely a question of abuse; it is a question of airlines trying to make themselves more attractive to passengers than other carriers by providing free alcohol. That practice ought to stop.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that the House and, indeed, passengers in general are most grateful to my noble friend for the information that he has provided about his experience of DVT, and for bringing this very real problem to our attention. As he said, we have initiated a departmental committee and various actions to try to ensure that the issue is more thoroughly researched. I am delighted to say that the industry has also shown its commitment towards trying to obtain further and better particulars on the problem.
As to drinking alcohol, one of the steps that the industry has very readily taken is to provide more information to passengers on the effects of alcohol at altitude. Indeed, it has also agreed to try, where appropriate, to limit the amount of alcohol consumed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what response the Government gave to the report on Powers and Penalties for Offences on Aircraft and Aerodromes, which was produced by the UK Airport Police Commander's Group in January of last year? In particular, can be say what response has been given regarding its recommendation that drunkenness on aircraft should become an arrestable offence?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the proposals put forward have been taken very seriously
990
indeed. We have under active consideration the possibility of UK legislation being extended from the present maximum of two years' imprisonment for endangering the safety of an aircraft to five years, which would make such behaviour an arrestable offence. Some other forms of dangerous activity are also under consideration. Noble Lords may remember that we announced in the Queen's Speech that a draft safety Bill would be produced which would provide the opportunity of including the kind of legislative change suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Newby: My Lords, can the Minister say whether his department has been in touch with British Airways about the incident on 28th December, when an aircraft on its way to Nairobi was nearly plunged into a fatal course by the actions of a deranged passenger, to ascertain whether there are any lessons to be learnt from that occurrence that might be taken on board right across the industry?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have discussed such matters with British Airways. Indeed, BA has been in close liaison with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is reviewing the circumstances in which the passenger boarded the aircraft. That review has not yet been completed, but it will be reported to Ministers. The CAA is also looking at the security of access to the flight deck on aircraft to ascertain whether it can be made more difficult for disruptive passengers to interfere with the flight of the aircraft. We understand that the Kenyan authorities have decided not to pursue the offender; he is considered to be mentally deranged. However, should he return to the United Kingdom, BA has said that it will prosecute.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Minister said that the result of the inquiry—if I may use that word—will be reported to Ministers. Can he say whether it will also be available to Members of your Lordships' House?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I shall certainly make every effort to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of another relatively recent case where a stewardess was stabbed in the back by a man who had been drinking vodka on board the aircraft and who subsequently broke the bottle and used it as an offensive weapon? Where it is known that a person has been drinking before boarding the aircraft, does not the noble Lord think that there is a strong case for the introduction of measures to allow the passenger to be searched and for any alcohol found on him to be removed before he boards?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Indeed, my Lords. We are very aware of the Fiona Weir case, which happened in October 1998. From that deeply unpleasant event, we developed the Disruptive Passengers Working Group in April 1999. This group

991
put together the unified reporting scheme for air rage incidents. In its meeting with representatives from the industry, the police, and with government departments, it has been considering voluntary and legislative measures. Those are the kind of measures that the airlines have under consideration, certainly as regards additional vigilance over who gets on to an aircraft. No doubt the ability to search passengers would form part of that process.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Update
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"I want to update the House on the latest position with regard to the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I also want to set out how the Government are taking forward disease control measures given our increased knowledge about how the disease has spread.
"At 1 p.m. today there have been 240 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom: 205,000 animals have been condemned for destruction, of which more than three quarters have already been slaughtered. This is out of a total UK cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million.
"Out of 160,000 livestock farms throughout the United Kingdom, 1,200 have been placed under restriction because of a confirmed or suspected case of the disease. We have been able to lift restrictions on over 660 of these farms, leaving less than 550 farms still restricted.
"This is a devastating disease for farming and for rural communities affected. I want to express my deepest sympathy for those farmers who have lost their herds and flocks, and to the wider farming communities who are going through a time of terrible uncertainty and distress.
"I was also sorry to learn of a confirmed case in France earlier in the week. As far as I understand it, there have been no further cases on the Continent. We have stayed in close contact with the European Commission and other European countries' veterinary authorities. They have all strongly supported the firm action taken in the UK to control the disease and prevent its spread.
"From the outset the Government have put firm disease control measures rapidly in place. Every action that has been taken is on the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer.
"Each day we have learned more about the outbreak. Epidemiological investigations—and the incubation of disease in livestock—have revealed
992
the mechanisms by which the disease has spread. As our understanding has increased, I have shared new information with the House through daily briefings.
"The disease has spread mainly through movements of sheep and subsequent mixing of animals at a small number of livestock markets. It is important to stress that the vast majority of disease spread around the country took place before 20th February when the outbreak was first discovered in Essex.
"With increased knowledge about how the disease has spread, the Government have been able to refine disease control measures. In the infected areas the Government have intensified controls. Where possible we have allowed movement, for example, to allow licensed movements to slaughter and short movements for welfare reasons.
"The Government are working to five key disease control aims: first, to keep free of disease those areas of the country that are disease free; secondly, to halt the deterioration of the disease situation in Devon; thirdly, to stop the spread of the disease in the north of England and south-west Scotland—we are increasingly seeing localised spread from sheep flock to sheep flock in Scotland and from cattle to cattle in Cumbria—fourthly, to minimise the spread of the disease from Longtown, Welshpool and Northampton markets, where it has been identified that infection has been present; and fifthly, to eliminate infection in flocks that have passed through dealers known to have handled infected flocks. And, of course, we shall keep this strategy under constant review.
"Taking each of these issues in turn, I shall set out the action the Government are taking. First, in areas that are currently disease free, we shall be establishing a new type of controlled area within which we hope eventually to allow a more normal level of activity both in agriculture and the rural community. But in the short term the priority will be to avoid the risk of importing the disease into these clean areas by movements of animals from areas where there is infection. In addition we shall be identifying any high risk movements of sheep which took place before 23rd February. These sheep will be destroyed to ensure that any possibility of infection is removed.
"Secondly, in Devon the disease has been spreading from farm to farm due to the nature of agriculture with lots of small farms, dense animal populations, movements of people and equipment. The strategy here will be to have an intensive patrol to all farms within three kilometres of the infected farm. Each farm will be visited and inspected by veterinary or trained lay staff to ensure that cases of foot and mouth disease are identified as soon as possible to prevent onward spread.
"Thirdly, the large focus on infection in the north of England and southern Scotland has been mostly concentrated in the sheep flock although there is now cattle to cattle spread in Cumbria. There are a considerable number of cases in this area with the

993
potential for rapid spread to adjacent farms and even further afield. In this case we must still ensure that infected animals are removed as quickly as possible and in order to do this it will be necessary to destroy animals within the three kilometre zones on a precautionary basis.
"Fourthly, we now have clear evidence that sheep from the markets in the Welshpool, Northampton and Longtown areas were exposed to disease and there is reason to suspect that, with the passage of time, numbers of flocks into which these sheep were imported may become infected. These flocks will be removed as dangerous contacts. Fifthly, the same approach will be taken to sheep handled during the high risk period by two major dealers who have been associated with the movements of infected sheep.
"This is a policy of safety first. We are intensifying the slaughter of animals at risk in the areas of the country—thankfully still limited—where the disease has spread. And then, provided that the other areas remain disease free, we can, over the next week to 10 days, consider modifying restrictions in the areas that have remained clean.
"We are deeply conscious of the animal welfare problems that have been posed by the movement restrictions that we have had to put in place for disease control reasons. We made arrangements last week for a number of local licensed movements, which will, I hope, have alleviated a proportion of these problems. We were not, however, then able to provide for longer distance movements of animals caught in the wrong place, for example, sheep that are "on tack" on dairy farms in England. I shall be publishing later today the principles of a scheme for moving such animals, necessarily under very tight restrictions. The general principle will be that animals can be moved within a presently controlled area, or within the currently disease free areas, or into an area of higher disease risk, but not the other way around. It is my intention that farmers will be able to apply for licences for such movement over the weekend.
"These arrangements will not, of course, be able to deal with all the welfare problems which animals are facing. Some animals will be unable to move because of their condition; others will be unable to move because they are in infected areas. Where animal welfare problems cannot be alleviated by local action, by which I mean husbandry action, we shall be putting in place arrangements for their disposal at public expense. This scheme will apply across the United Kingdom. Payments will be made for such animals, broadly on the lines of those adopted by the Government in East Anglia last autumn for the pig welfare disposal scheme.
"I should emphasise that this is a voluntary scheme. It will be for individual farmers to decide whether to offer livestock to the scheme. Acceptances will depend upon certification by a vet that a welfare problem exists or is about to emerge.
"The licence to slaughter scheme introduced on 2nd March has allowed the meat trade to begin operating again, although on a necessarily limited
994
basis. The latest estimate of the Meat and Livestock Commission is that the pig sector is back to 78 per cent of normal production, beef is at 68 per cent and lamb is at 30 per cent of normal production. Veterinary advice does not recommend the setting up a system of collection centres, although I have to tell the House that the option is being kept under review.
"The control of foot and mouth disease is a major logistical exercise. In this task we are drawing on the expertise of many public sector organisations, particularly those with field organisations or specialist knowledge and expertise including the Ministry of Defence, the Environment Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission and my ministry's own agencies. The Ministry of Defence is deploying a logistic planning team, drawn from Land Command, to provide advice on the planning and management of my ministry's and other civil resources. We have also been offered support from a wider range of private organisations. In addition there has been international support, particularly in the provision of veterinary staff to help with the disease control programme. I am enormously grateful for all of this support.
"Disease control measures have had a major impact on non-farm businesses in rural areas, and in particular the tourism industry. Yesterday my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained to the House what the Government are doing to help those sectors.
"A new task force has met to take this work forward. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment will make further announcements next week. My ministry will continue to provide targeted advice and guidance from the Chief Veterinary Officer on the risks associated with a range of activities in the countryside.
"Movement control measures in place are keeping the spread of the disease to an absolute minimum. Slaughtering out of infected farms and dangerous contacts is bearing down on the disease where it exists. An intensified slaughter policy in respect of animals thought to be at risk of developing the disease will, of course, add to this effort. As further cases emerge we shall learn more about the way the outbreak has developed, and this will inform any further refinements of the control policy as necessary. And of course I shall continue to keep the House informed.
"Foot and mouth disease is a personal tragedy for those affected, and a body blow to the livestock industry as a whole. Again, I express the Government's deepest sympathy for those affected; I also want to express my support and appreciation of the State Veterinary Service, the farming organisations and all those others who are involved in combating the disease and dealing with its consequences. I continue to appeal to the public for their co-operation. It is important to remember that the key risk is contact with susceptible livestock, The

995
precautionary measures should be focused on bearing down on that risk. There is no need to bring all aspects of rural activity to a standstill. So while the disease is still with us I renew my appeal to the public to avoid unnecessary visits to livestock farms, and where visits are unavoidable, to take the precautions advised.
"I am grateful for the support of the House for the Government's actions. It is important that we set aside party politics in dealing with this outbreak. If the whole country works together and works constructively then we shall get through this".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We should like to record our thanks for her work in the long debate on Tuesday when she listened to our many concerns and responded so well to questions that we posed. We express our gratitude to the vets, the officials, farming organisations, local authority workers and everyone who is busy working out there on the front line. We express our deepest sympathy to all farmers who are struggling and having the distressing experience of seeing their animals slaughtered. I acknowledge the difficulties being suffered by many people, other than farmers, who are living in rural areas and who have a variety of businesses facing very difficult financial circumstances at this time. We are all involved in this dreadful disaster. We support the Government in the efforts that they are making.
I have seven questions for the Minister. We are particularly pleased to hear that the Government are adopting a scheme similar to the pig welfare disposal scheme which I know will be across all species; it is not just for pigs. First, what percentage of market value is the Government estimating giving to farmers who voluntarily put their animals in for slaughter?
Secondly, on the question of burial of livestock there are conflicting views. In some areas it is possible to bury livestock, but there are some areas where the water course is at an undue high state and obviously those areas are unsuitable for burying. Is it anticipated that livestock will be buried on individual farms, or is the Ministry looking to have sites in the locality to which animals could be taken for burial in large numbers? The 1967 report recommended burial as one form of coping with the disposal of carcasses rather than burning. I would be grateful for greater clarification.
Thirdly, the Government have indicated that they are taking on extra help, particularly from the Army, in respect of slaughter and acceleration of disposal of carcasses. Is the Minister satisfied because, sadly, since the first Statement in this House the number of cases has doubled—we are up to 240? Has the Minister enough available help in whatever form, either through the Ministry or private means?
996
Fourthly, I turn to the veterinary inspection. When a vet is reasonably suspicious of a foot and mouth case does it need a MAFF vet to confirm it or can the vet on site at that moment declare it as such, and therefore slaughtering can go ahead? One or two of the criticisms have been that there has been a delay. The Minister will understand that if the vet on duty is unable to clarify that, and they wait for another vet, it does take time. Is there to be greater use of trainee vets, and I refer also to the use of hunt servants about whom we spoke previously?
Fifthly, during the debate on Tuesday the Minister mentioned that the banks and the Government were to meet yesterday. Although it is not in the Statement today, can the Minister give an up-date on any information that would give help to those farmers who have a dreadful cash flow and cannot see where they are going? Would the Government consider giving help to them in the meantime?
Sixthly, I turn to the question of movement. There is great concern among the farming community and the wider community about the movement of slaughtered animals to rendering plants. I understand the advantages of using rendering plants. It is a real concern for people out there. They are concerned that those vehicles used should be completely sealed so that there is no risk of an infected vehicle going through a non-infected area and passing on infection.
Seventhly, I turn to infectivity. I understood that Nick Brown said that infectivity could be for a longer period than two weeks. Until now we understood that infectivity was anything from three days and up to two weeks. I should be grateful for clarification on that. There are other questions that Members will want to ask. I should like to give the Minister plenty of time to answer the questions that I have posed. I thank the Minister for her hard work and the way in which she has come back to the House and kept us informed.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches we add our sympathy to the great number of farmers who have been affected and the other rural businesses. Since our debate on Tuesday there has been the sad news of the first farming suicide directly linked to this situation. We join with the comments of appreciation for the hard work of MAFF officials, other workers and local authority staff, some of whom have been hardly sleeping. They have been working all the hours that they possibly can. We welcome the announcement by the Minister of a policy of eradicating any sheep from suspected markets. We agree thoroughly with the policy of trying to get ahead of the disease as best as it can be done. Can the Minister clarify that where there is an unconfirmed suspicion of disease on a farm there will be a decision taken to slaughter rather than to wait any longer for that negative result?
Devon is an area of very small farms. Small farmers will have less income or no income to cushion themselves from the results of this problem. Will the DSS send out guidelines to farmers to inform them of

997
their entitlements so that they do not have the burden of making what can sometimes be very lengthy inquiries? Can the DSS produce a standard form in consultation with MAFF? Has the Minister had discussions with colleagues about the use of disinfectant regarding people coming from the infected area of France to Britain? Clearly, that is an issue.
I hesitate to ask the Minister whether she feels that the Government's message to the public about visiting the countryside is clear enough. I listened carefully to what the Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher, said when interviewed. It did not seem to me that there was a very clear message and that some disease free areas and other areas could be visited. I was in the South West yesterday and people are desperate that the public are not encouraged to visit unnecessarily. It seems to me that that message is still somewhat confused by those who are concerned about tourist attractions losing their business—and I thoroughly sympathises with those people—but the name of the game, as the Minister indicated, is to eradicate the disease. There must be a clear message of no visiting and no movement that is unnecessary. If the result of that is consequential compensation for areas heavily tourist dependent then that is something that the Government need to consider.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her tremendous commitment in answering questions in this House and for her hard work outside the House.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of both noble Baronesses, in particular for the staff who have been working tremendously long hours. For obvious reasons, they tend to be criticised if and when something goes wrong while they are doing in the main a tremendously good job under enormous pressure and changing circumstances.
I deal, first, with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We are working on the details of the welfare disposal scheme. We shall make them public. It is not a substitute market; it is a welfare disposal scheme. It will be broadly based on the pig welfare disposal scheme. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I shall not cite exact numbers or proportions at this time. We shall make those available. For some people there will be commercial decisions about whether to go into the scheme.
Burial has always been an option on individual farms. It has not been taken up to the extent that it was in 1967 for two reasons. The first is the increased concern about environmental effects. Burial has to be checked with the Environment Agency in terms of the effect on water courses. The water table being so high this year has ruled out burial in some circumstances. Equally, we have been dealing with larger numbers of animals per farm than in 1967. There is a possibility of landfill sites being used rather than on-farm burial. We are investigating those urgently and hope to make an announcement about potential landfill sites for burial.
998
The Statement gave the number of organisations, civil and military, which are providing support. The noble Baroness is right that it is an enormous logistical task. We have had a great deal of help already. More is coming in all the time. I hope that the logistical support team will identify in particular where additional resources are most necessary and will free up some veterinary resource which is the most difficult to access immediately because of the need for training. The noble Baroness also asked about trainee vets We are considering the possibility of using veterinary college students in their final or penultimate year to undertake some of the work, perhaps in Devon, involving regular visiting and patrolling of farms. Other lay people could also be trained for such tasks.
I do not believe that diagnosis is being held up in relation to laboratory results. In the vast majority of cases—the Chief Veterinary Officer told me today that it is about 80 per cent—diagnosis is made when the vet on the farm telephones headquarters. If they are satisfied from the description of the clinical signs that there is disease, it is confirmed there and then without waiting for laboratory results. Arrangements are then made for slaughter on-farm at the earliest possible opportunity. All noble Lords understand why it is important that the subsequent disposal is done quickly.
When I said recently that we were meeting the banks "tomorrow" there was a slight irony in my voice; I said it just after midnight so it was already Wednesday. The meeting should have started five minutes ago. We shall have further talks with the banks after their initial response to try to make some assistance available to their farming customers.
Perhaps I may give further reassurance on the movement to rendering plants. I know that there has been concern, particularly when there has been movement through areas of the country without infection. Despite the pressure to bring rendering plants on-stream early, such movement was not started before the CVO had reassured himself that the risks had been totally minimised. That is because one is dealing with corpses rather than live animals; they will have been sprayed with disinfectant; the lorries are adequately sealed; and there is a disinfectant regime after the rendering plants. Another rendering plant in the South West has now come on-stream. We hope to announce two more in due course.
On infectivity—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, is in his place; he will tell me if I get this wrong—there are two issues. First, there is the period of time during which an animal may be infectious, some of which is before it shows clinical signs. The height of infectivity is in the early stages of clinical signs. There will be a tail-off of infectivity. That period may be about seven days. Secondly, the noble Baroness asked about the two-week period. The normal parameters for the incubation period are three to 14 days. But in the first case—the pigs were very close together and highly infected—we saw signs in 36 hours. Just as the period can be shorter, I believe that

999
it can also be longer. I understand that three to 14 days would be the text-book description of the incubation period for symptoms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked me about disease and identification and the wait for negative results. I understand what she says. Those are based not only on the clinical symptoms but also on the epidemiology. The noble Baroness will understand that the veterinary judgment about a suspect case in Devon in the centre of an infected area may be speedier than that for a new, suspect case in a totally clean area when people will want to assure themselves that they are dealing with a case of foot and mouth disease—in particular if we are dealing with sheep when it could be orf or something else. But I am sure that there is no undue delay.
The noble Baroness rightly points out the need for the Department of Social Security to offer guidelines on benefits. It has already taken action on that, as has the Inland Revenue, with its local offices, in terms of the working families' tax credit. I take on board her suggestion about giving information directly to farmers and those in allied industries who are also being laid off temporarily.
Controls were put on the movements from the area of France where the disease has been identified. I take on board her point about disinfectant.
As regards advice on visiting the countryside, I agree with the noble Baroness. I think that there have been different interpretations of the veterinary risk and the advice available. We are trying to clarify that advice. I understand what the noble Baroness says about those in the South West who are desperate not to see the slightest risk of spreading disease. Equally, people in the South West who are dependent on tourism, while desperate not to spread the disease, are concerned about unnecessarily compromising wider parts of the rural economy. We are not dealing only with the rural economy. There are reports of cancellations by visitors from overseas to London. We must have a proportionate response. We can do that best by promulgating clear advice about the veterinary risks. That is one of the first tasks of the working party. I hope that it will be completed at the end of this week.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I well remember that donkey's years ago, when I was a young boy, my father experienced an outbreak of foot and mouth in Cheshire. I warmly congratulate the Minister and her department on their rapid response to this disease. Unhappily, we now have a secondary outbreak that includes Somerset and other parts of the country. I have a more important and, I hope, helpful point for the Minister. I hope that she agrees that, disastrous though the loss of animals is for those concerned, the number involved is only a small proportion of our national stocks and herds. We hope that the outbreak
1000
will be over within a few weeks or months. We should then still have supreme confidence in the quality of our pedigree herds.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We should in no way diminish the seriousness of the outbreak, but it has affected a tiny proportion of the livestock and livestock farmers in the country—less than 1 per cent of each. Even with the significant measures we have announced today, there will be a substantial high-quality industry to rebuild in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I associate myself with all the tributes that have been paid to the Minister for her work and to those who are trying to cope with this dreadful disease and all its effects. There undoubtedly have been delays and problems. We all understand that they are due mainly to the amazing geographical spread of the disease and the dreadful rapidity with which it developed. I have two points to make. First, I am grateful to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for his remarkable gift to the agricultural charities. I am sure that your Lordships want that to be recognised in this House and an expression of thanks to be conveyed to His Royal Highness. I appeal to those individuals and organisations who have it in their means to follow his example, even if not with equal generosity, by supporting the work of the charities that are doing such remarkable work at the moment helping to sustain the farming community.
The Minister has helpfully set out the Government's plans for allowing—or hoping to allow—some greater freedom of movement. I should like to press the point about farmers who have in-lamb ewes far from their farms. Many of them wish with desperate urgency to enable those ewes to come back to where the lambing needs to take place. In areas that are completely free of infection, such as west Wales or Sussex, is it not possible for movements of 20, 30 or 40 miles to be authorised with immediate effect, provided the transport is done with proper care and precaution? That very urgent need cannot wait even until next week.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I echo the comments of the right reverend Prelate on his first point and acknowledge the work that is being done by all the voluntary organisations, particularly those who are giving not only financial but emotional support and counselling to affected families. I take on board the urgency of some of the welfare movements, particularly for in-lamb ewes. The circumstances that the right reverend Prelate described would be covered by the welfare scheme that we are working out. I cannot offer him immediate implementation of part of that scheme only because we have to be certain all the time that we do not spread the disease. That means that when we implement a new scheme, particularly for long-distance movements, we have to have in place

1001
the regulations for licensing and assessment by a veterinary authority that these are the right things to do. I promise that we shall do it as speedily as we can.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the work she has done inside and outside the House. All our sympathies go out to the wider farming community. Following on the point about pregnant ewes, is it not possible to help farmers who have to lamb in the open by providing finance for temporary buildings to reduce their losses?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have given advice on how to minimise loss when ewes have to lamb away from home. I shall look into the issue of financial support that my noble friend has raised.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I declare an interest. My family has a dairy farm in west Gloucestershire with a number of outbreaks distressingly close to it. My question sounds very gloomy, particularly in view of the point that the Minister made that the percentage of the national herd so far infected is very small. However, I am frequently asked the question. I do not in any way want to call the Government's present policy of slaughter into question. But at what stage in a worst case scenario do they contemplate abandoning it? Presumably, they do not contemplate slaughtering the last but one herd in England to preserve the last herd. If the outbreaks continue to spread and we have a genuine worst case scenario, at what point does it become impossible or undesirable to maintain the slaughter policy?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall follow the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer, which is not to make predictions and not to deal with hypothetical situations. I assure the noble Viscount that we are looking at contingencies and adapting policy as the situation progresses. We have not yet reached the stage that he describes and I hope that we shall not do so.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems of deciding to move apparently healthy animals is that they can have the virus before it is clinically apparent? That is one of the great difficulties of contact between animals. If they are moved too quickly, they may move the infection before they are seen to have foot and mouth disease. Does the Minister have any new information on the origin of the present virus and how it got into this country? After this is all over—or maybe while it is still going on—can we have a method of alerting international travellers that we do not permit fresh meat and meat products to come into this country? We should make it an offence to import such products without permission, as is the case in the United States. Those of us who have visited the United States know that one has to make a declaration on the customs form. Could there be a similar declaration for visitors coming to this country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have no further information on the
1002
cause of what we believe to be the initial outbreak, but there is no change in the view that the first case was at the pig farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall. No older incidence of the disease has been identified. The noble Lord is right to point out that we need to look closely not only at the regulatory framework, which is tightly drawn for commercial and personal imports from areas that have the disease, but at the enforcement of that framework. That work has already been commissioned and will be undertaken. We are fighting the disease.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has taken heart from the understanding that has flowed towards her from around the House, especially from those who live in communities that are suffering dreadfully. I do not know of any man, woman or child in the whole country, including those of us who live in urban areas and do not have contact with the problem, who does not share the agony that has been suffered particularly by those who live in farming communities. Will she accept our enormous gratitude for the attitude that she and her ministerial colleagues in the Government have displayed? As far as I am concerned, taxpayers pay their taxes to deal with a national crisis. If the Minister wants reassurance that that is what is required to help to solve the problem, I am sure that the House and the whole country would be more generous in supporting her.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. The denial of access to the countryside has made people who do not live there even more aware of how much we are one nation in this response. In terms of resources, there has certainly been no constraint on the Chief Veterinary Officer with regard to what he needs to do or what he recommends in fighting the disease.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for all her efforts in recent weeks, I take it that everything she has said today about the regulations applies to Scotland as well as to England. Although I cannot go to my home in Dumfries, I am assured by everyone there that the area is devastated. They have put forward three key issues. They have asked, first, when they may hear something about financial help to farmers over and above the £160 million of agrimoney that they are owed anyway; secondly, when financial help will be made available for tourism, which is at an absolute full stop; and, thirdly, subject to what has happened following the Lockerbie air disaster, whether the Government propose to provide financial help to the local authority for all the most effective extra work that it is presently doing to keep the disease away from the area.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are well aware that local authorities are incurring extra costs as a result of the issuing of licences and the patrolling of movement restrictions. That will be borne in mind in the assessment of claims for compensation and for support and aid that are being made. As the noble

1003
Lord is aware, we have brought forward £156 million of agrimonetary compensation. Farmers are compensated in full for the value of destroyed herds. I know that, over and above that, there are still concerns about financial consequences, but I believe that the House recognises how wide they go and how difficult it is to assess where one can draw any particular line.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, anyone visiting the MAFF website will be struck by the number of cases that have arisen from two dealers. I should like to ask the Minister, first, whether the delay in tracing some of those cases has been due to ill-kept records. Every animal keeper is required to keep an animal movements book, and I know that many dealers have difficulty keeping records. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the failure to keep proper records has caused the delay?
Secondly—I regret that I have not given the Minister notice of this—it has been reported in the press that private veterinary practices are refusing to help the MAFF vets because of the fees that MAFF is offering. I observe that everybody in the farming community and in the country is making sacrifices left, right and centre. It might be helpful if the vets could also make such sacrifices.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with regard to the latter point, I am sure that the veterinary associations will note what the noble Countess has said. We have had a very good response. The size of the State Veterinary Service has effectively doubled during the present outbreak as a result of temporary veterinary inspectors coming in to assist. I know that discussion is taking place about the level of fees.
With regard to the issue of recordkeeping, almost by definition, one cannot be aware of non-existent, or sometimes bad, recordkeeping. The main problem has occurred at markets where out-of-ring transactions have taken place. Clear records exist of transactions that take place under the auspices of auctioneers and valuers. In the case of out-of-ring transactions, although both the purchaser and the vendor may have kept their own appropriate movement records, no central list is available, which has undoubtedly created tracing difficulties.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, returning to the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, will my noble friend tell me a little more about the movement of pregnant ewes in infected areas? I understand what is to happen in areas that are not infected. I hate to return again to the problem in Radnor, but some farmers there cannot move their pregnant ewes one mile to a field in their own ownership, and that is causing a certain amount of stress. I should be grateful if my noble friend would assure me that there will be some flexibility in that regard.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we shall do everything possible to facilitate
1004
movements which do not increase disease risk. Until now, we have allowed very short movements in infected areas. Under the new scheme that we propose to put into effect, it may be possible to allow longer movements. The difficulty occurs in allowing any movement from an infected area into an area that is currently clean, which will be the case when some ewes need to return to west Wales, which is clean, from the South West, where there is infection. However, we should be able to solve the problems that exist in infected areas.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she is completely convinced that her department is right in not telling the horse racing industry that horse racing should for the moment be completely banned?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am convinced that my department's responsibility is to give veterinary risk-assessment advice. We have taken very firm action to ban the highest risk; namely, the movement of susceptible livestock. We have taken action to provide veterinary advice, whether to associations of walkers, to the horse racing board or to tourism, about the risk assessment. We cannot take decisions in respect of every activity or sporting event. On veterinary advice, we have to ensure that if there is no argument for banning an event, we allow the risk-minimisation and risk-management advice to be given, on which people will take their own decisions.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a dairy farmer in Suffolk—a county which to my knowledge, thank God, has not yet been affected. Despite the good work being done by the Minster's department, there is, as she probably knows, increasing criticism of the length of time taken to dispose of corpses. Will the Minister consider handing over that responsibility to the Army, especially to the Royal Engineers, who have the equipment, the ability and the discipline to deal with it? This morning I talked to two Cumbrian farmers who are very worried that the disease may be spread by carrion, birds, foxes and rats from corpses that may take four or five days to dispose of.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about the importance of ensuring a speedy destruction of corpses. We shall take advice from the logistical unit of the Ministry of Defence as to the best mechanism for achieving that, whether it be by a private contractor or the Army. As I said on Tuesday, I quite understand the distress that is caused by the problem. In terms of disease control, however, the priority is the slaughter of the animals. Following slaughter, the animals cannot exhale the virus, they are sprayed with disinfectant and their decomposition changes the pH levels in the meat. The risk of transmission of the disease is therefore minimised to

1005
an insignificant level. However, we recognise that the disposal of corpses is still enormously distressing, and we want to deal with it as quickly as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that there is confusion in some people's minds about the contradiction between allowing stock to remain on a farm once it is dead, which the Minister told us on Tuesday was acceptable because of the minimal risk, and transporting the same stock to a rendering plant with the significantly greater protection of disinfection and containment in a sealed lorry. If stock has to go through that amount of additional protection, why is it still safe to leave it on a farm for days after its death?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we need to understand the distances with which we are dealing and the amount of movement involved. We also need to understand that, in some cases, as has been pointed out, lorries are being taken through non-infected areas. Rightly, everyone wants to ensure that our approach in that respect is as precautionary as possible. That is why we are taking precautions in relation to lorries.
Equally, we need to ensure the rapid disposal of animals on farms, and we are doing everything that we can to speed that up. I was simply trying to explain to the House that the risks of animals remaining on farms after slaughter are much lower than those of having diseased live animals on farms. We do not want any risk at all and we are doing everything to speed up disposal.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Conduct prohibited without a licence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert ("; or
("( ) he is required in the course of his employment to engage in licensable conduct falling within paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for returning once again to the question of in-house employees and, in particular, to whether they should be licensed under the provisions of this Bill.
I do so for a number of reasons. First, I have been sent some correspondence between Mr Ian Goswell, who describes himself as "of the private security industry authority"—interestingly enough, because we have not set up that organisation—and the business law committee of accountants, I believe. In that e-mail, dated 23rd February last, he deals with the issue of students and those who are under secondment to accountancy firms. He says that the licensing
1006
requirement applies only to those whose main employment is concerned with the activities listed in Schedule 2 and as supplied under contract. Students or secondees employed by an accountancy firm would be in-house employees and would not, therefore, require a licence.
To my mind, that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "in-house employee". That expression would be correct only if, in the context in which it was being written, a student or secondee carried out private investigations for those who employed him; in other words, for the accountancy firm itself. Just as a doorkeeper is an in-house employee when he works for the firm that employs him, so a private investigator can be described as "in-house" only if he is engaged to investigate for the accountancy firm itself. However, as soon as clients enter into the equation—I imagine that that is the purpose of this correspondence—such people would cease to be in-house employees. I should like the Minister to consider whether the people within his department who are engaged with this Bill have dealt with the concept correctly.
I turn to the second reason why I raise this issue again. The Minister will recall that at Second Reading I indicated my opposition and the opposition of my party to the use of private security firms in carrying out police activities. Indeed, the noble Lord was kind enough to give assurances both to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this was not a precursor to privatisation within the police service. He said:
"That is not our intention in bringing forward the Bill. We have no great desire to contract out core police tasks. We believe that the police service is properly in the public sector. As many of your Lordships will know, we have spent extra resources and put more money into the police service. We want to shore it up. We do not want to hack away at it for fundamentals".—[Offical Report, 18/ 12/00; col. 600.]
That was followed by the publication of the White Paper, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead. In paragraph 3.158 of that paper it was indicated that experiments were to take place with the private security industry in carrying out core police functions. The White Paper states:
"The private security industry will be subject to regulation under the Private Security Bill now before Parliament".
Therefore, when the White Paper was written, the contents of this Bill were clearly before the authors' minds.
"But",
it says,
"no attempts have been made to link the overall contribution to public safety made by different bodies in a local area. The Government believes that there is scope for some evaluated schemes to determine the effect on public reassurance of the police accrediting and coordinating a range of independent bodies to work in conjunction with them in delivering community safety.
"This might best be organised as a crime and disorder partnership initiative. Staff working on such schemes would be deployed to meet particular requirements and would not be diverted to meet other organisational priorities. They would not generally have the power of the constable and would be accountable to their employers, but their recognition as contributors to public safety would depend on police approval of the scheme in question".
Therefore, the White Paper, Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead, envisages the use of private security firms to patrol the streets and to assist the police and community policing. If that is to be the case, I believe that it is essential that in-house employees are licensed under the Bill. Although I have broached this point on a number of occasions, I ask the Minister whether, in the light of the two matters that I have mentioned, he will rethink his position. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the position of accountants and their staff is a matter that I proposed to raise under Amendment No. 9. Of course, I have raised this issue previously in the course of discussing what happens with regard to professional accountants who carry out audit and other accountancy tasks.
Initially, I made the point that it seemed that an audit was, in effect, a contract to look into a firm's books and to produce an audit report on it, in the course of which part of the purpose was to investigate any possible fraud and, through the accounting system, to eliminate the possibility of fraud in the future. Therefore, it appeared that, as the Bill originally stood, every accountant undertaking ordinary audit work would require a licence, as would all his staff.
The Government were kind enough to agree that that was undesirable and, at an earlier stage, they moved an amendment which provided the accountancy exemption that now appears in the Bill. However, that does not provide for the exemption of any employees. I am aware that correspondence and contact has occurred between the Home Office and the accountancy institute. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to correspondence concerning the position of non-qualified staff employed by qualified accountants on work of that character.
The Government's position, as I understand it, is that because the staff are in-house, they will not require a licence, so there is no need to worry. However, from what I have seen, and according to the advice that has been given to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, to which I belong, when staff are employed on the premises of clients, as they often will be, they will require a licence if they are not members of the institute. If staff require a licence, their bosses will also require a licence under the earlier provisions. Every partner in every accountancy firm will therefore require a licence. That is why I am still concerned about the position of employees.
We need an amendment like Amendment No. 9—I am aware that I am informally grouping Amendment No. 9 with Amendment No.1, but that is for the convenience of discussing this point—if we are to avoid every accountancy firm engaged in audit requiring a licence. I understand that that is the agreed position of the Government and ourselves. It is easier if we raise that matter now.
With regard to the police core tasks, I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. As the
1008
noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly said, we have been discussing this matter since the earlier stages of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I apologise to the House if the correspondence received by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is confusing. Obviously, I shall look at the text of the letter again to satisfy myself that it is not. Our policy is clear, and is pretty much as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has described it.
With regard to in-house staff, we believe that the balance is about right, and I am more than happy with the way in which we are proceeding. I shall, of course, review the correspondence again to check the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
On the second point raised by the noble Lord, the White Paper is trying to describe how to provide for the situation, which probably currently exists, when some activities, which could be described as core policing work, carried out by private security companies are carried out in a more public domain. We need to knit that work into local crime and disorder partnerships. That is where the White Paper is coming from. It would deliver to the public a wider measure of accountability. The measure has been widely praised and broadly welcomed because of the way in which voluntary organisations, the police, local authorities and so on, will be brought together to improve the performance of law enforcement. People are being made more aware of local crime issues, which is what the White Paper is trying to achieve. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, his amendment would not cover private security firms in the way in which he describes.
I hope that I have given a measure of reassurance. The White Paper is trying to improve and strengthen accountability, rather than diminish it. When private security companies are involved in a more public domain, perhaps working on behalf of a private company in a public place, they should be seen as very much part of the aim to tackle crime in our communities, towns and city centres.
We have covered this subject frequently in previous debates, and I see no great purpose in rehearsing the arguments that we have heard before. We feel that we have offered sufficient reassurance. We have debated the matter and, at this stage, we do not believe that it is right to require in-house staff to have licences, except for special cases, such as door supervisors and wheelclampers. The security industry authorities will be keeping these matters under careful review, and will make recommendations to the Secretary of State from time to time if there are gaps in the licensing regime.
In those circumstances, perhaps some of the concerns that have been raised in the past can be readdressed. We shall consult on how best to achieve our goals, and potential loopholes will be identified. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the letter from Mr Goswell? It says that students who are employed by an accountancy firm would be in-house employees, and would therefore not require a licence. My understanding of the Bill is that they would be in-house employees only if they were working in the accountancy firm on its own matters. Is the Minister saying that "audit" is not regarded as doing work under contract for another firm? It seems clear to me that it is, albeit of a specialised character. If the Minister is saying that because such people are employed, they can work under contract without requiring a licence, presumably anyone could work under a contract for another firm of any character, other than wheelclamping or door supervision, without requiring a licence. That is surely not what the Bill means.
Is the Minister saying that "audit" is not regarded as doing work under contract to another firm; or is he saying that a licence is required if the auditor is working not on the accountancy firm's own accounts, but on a client's accounts in the client's premises? Inspiration may strike the Minister any minute.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall exercise the correspondence card on that one, as I do not want to spread confusion where there should be clarity. The interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is probably right: when staff are working on matters internal to the accountancy firm, that would be considered to be in-house. Perhaps there could be circumstances when no licence is required. I refer, for example, to students or people on some sort of secondment carrying out audits. I want to clarify the matter in my own mind, so I shall happily correspond with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on the matter.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister is always willing to write to us, which we appreciate, but we are on Third Reading. Whatever happens today is the end of the debate in this House. In those circumstances, I should be grateful if the Minister would copy the correspondence to my right honourable friend Miss Widdecombe.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the letter from Mr Goswell seems to suggest that there is a misunderstanding. The easiest way of appreciating what is meant by "in-house" is to look at guarding. If a firm employs guards to look after its premises, they are clearly in-house employees. If, on the other hand, the firm sends those employees to guard someone else's premises, they are no longer in-house employees; and they clearly require a licence. If we translate that into the accountancy field, the only way in which we could say that the employees of an accountancy firm who are non-qualified are in-house is if they are working on their own firm's accounts. If they go off and work on somebody else's accounts under contract, they are no longer in-house. That is the fundamental problem.
1010
The other issue in relation to using security firm personnel on the street is this. Under the Bill, for a security firm to employ personnel to work on other people's premises they will have to be licensed; they will have to go through all the checks that are necessary; their backgrounds will have to be looked into and they will have to satisfy the authority that they are appropriate people. But if the security firm sends them out on the street, as at present, just because the security firm is employed by the Home Office to assist the police, they will not require a licence; they will not require those checks to be made upon their background.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in the circumstances that the noble Lord describes, they probably would require that licence.
Too much is being made of this point. I can see why the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, may consider that to be the case. But looking at practical examples—for instance where Group 4 may patrol regularly a shopping precinct which is in private ownership—one could describe the activity of the personnel as being not very different from that of a police officer, although they would not have the same powers, patrolling an area. However, the circumstances in which they patrol are different. They are doing important security work; they are employed by Group 4, and one would expect them to be properly regulated in those circumstances.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that makes my point. Within the shopping precinct they have to be licensed. But what happens if they go out into a public place and, as the White Paper envisages, are possibly given the powers of a police constable? The words used are that they will not "generally" require the powers of arrest. Surely, the checks that will have to be carried out on those personnel will be even greater. I have made my point.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. My noble friend Lord Astor suggested a way out of the difficulty in relation to correspondence. Perhaps the Minister could accept Amendment No. 9 when we come to it. That way we shall have incorporated it into the Bill. Should the Government then decide that Amendment No. 9 is not required, they can take it out in the Commons. It will come back here in due course and we can respond to the correspondence. If the Minister does not accept Amendment No. 9, then we shall not have that opportunity should the Commons fail to raise this matter. I wonder if that course appeals to the Minister.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord is suggesting standing down the troops. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Licensing criteria]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 39, after ("licensed;") insert—
("( ) may include criteria for securing that persons who engage in licensable conduct have appropriate training in racial awareness and disability equality;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 was suggested to me by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. It seeks to add to the criteria which ensure that persons applying for a licence have the training and skills necessary to engage in the conduct for which they are licensed by specifying that they should have appropriate training in racial awareness and disability equality. It is in the public interest that those who exercise functions under this Bill should be made aware of the problems of racism and of the specific requirements of people who are suffering from a disability before they are given the licence to carry out their tasks. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall be brief. We cannot support this amendment. Those who are covered by the licence are also covered by existing race relations and disability laws. The amendment would therefore seem to be unnecessary.
Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that doormen are there, by and large, not to turn people away but more often to encourage them to enter in an orderly manner and help them to leave in an orderly manner. That is their job. They are unlikely to keep their job if they spend their time preventing people entering.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure which side I take in that definition of the primary role of doormen. With regard to this section of the Bill we are probably looking at the possibilities of a more pejorative perspective of the role of doormen, hence the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which led him to table the amendment, as he indicated, being stimulated from an impeccable source elsewhere.
This is an important issue and I am entirely in sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. It would add a new criterion to the face of the Bill which the authority might use when judging an application for a licence to act as a security operative. The new criterion would allow the authority to include that applicants for licences should have "appropriate" training in race and disability issues.
The Government have said on several occasions that one of the reasons for regulating the private security industry is that its operatives are, in most circumstances, coming into contact with people who feel themselves to be in some way vulnerable or, at times, possibly subject to unfair discrimination and over whom the operatives have a certain degree of power and authority. It is therefore an entirely reasonable concern that they should be seen to have a sensitivity to and at the very least an awareness of the
1012
position of groups of people in our society who may not always have had a square deal and who are confronted by this element of authority.
Perhaps the noble Lord can anticipate my next remarks, particularly in the light of the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor; my comments are consistent with the line taken by my noble friend on earlier occasions when sympathy was expressed with the concerns raised. We do not believe we need to include such a permissive criterion on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord may argue that there is more likelihood of the authorities using such a criterion if it is explicitly available on the face of the Bill. Conversely, we would not see it as being any less likely to be used if it fell to be considered under the "other matters" provision of Clause 7(3)(c).
We are therefore willing to give an undertaking to ensure that the possibility of a criterion in relation to race and disability awareness is built into the planning processes leading up to the establishment of the authority. We recognise the motives behind the amendment and that there is a task to be fulfilled in those terms. But we do not consider it necessary for it to be on the face of the Bill. On that basis I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, and for the undertaking that matters of this nature will be built into the planning process and included under subsection (3)(c).
The training and skills necessary to engage in the conduct for which people are licensed have emerged in one or two cases in the criminal courts in which I have been involved. That sort of training tends to be the ability to hold people in a lock-hold or to eject them forcibly without damaging or bruising them. Matters of racial awareness and disability equality are far more important. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7. line 30, at end insert (", including formats accessible to visually impaired people,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was suggested to me by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I appreciate that in a recent letter dated 13th March the Minister stated in paragraph 5 that the Government were not yet thinking in detailed terms about the prescriptions for the format of licences and that that would need to be put into regulation. I have tabled the amendment so that it will be foremost in the minds of those who are charged with the duty of prescribing that format. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as with the previous amendment, we are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

1013
However, we believe that the Minister has got it right. We are grateful for the explanation that he gave in paragraph 5 of his letter, and are happy to accept that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, moved the amendment. It is essential that licences which may have to be on public display are of print which is large enough for most people to be able to read. I include in that people with visual impairments. It is also essential that the licence is designed in such a way that the colour contrast between the paper and the print does not make it extremely difficult to read. This is a sensible amendment, which I support.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken indicated that there is a principle behind the amendment similar to that in a previous amendment with regard to issues of racial awareness. Once again I express my obvious sympathy with the implications behind the amendment. Therefore, the issue comes down to the narrow point of the effectiveness of the amendment being carried on the face of the Bill.
It is important that the physical licences which the authority will issue will be carried at relevant times and produced when necessary. The authority has the power to impose appropriate conditions in relation to those requirements, including taking account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that they are readily legible by those of us who may have difficulty with our eyesight, and certainly by people with significant visual impairment. It is similarly important that the details of the licence are accessible to those with a significant visual impairment. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is well taken.
Under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act it is against the law to offer people with a disability a service which is not as good as the service being offered to other people, or to provide a service on terms which are different from the terms being given to other people. The provisions of the Act for a general right of access to goods and services are designed both to prevent discriminatory behaviour and to require reasonable adjustments to overcome physical and communication barriers to disabled people, such as the provision of literature in alternative formats for those with a visual impairment. Those rights apply to all services.
The security industry authority, in common with other public and private bodies, will be bound by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and will therefore be required to take the reasonable steps that that Act requires. The authority will also take account of best practice in the area of licence format. It will discuss the issue with the appropriate bodies, adopt the best physical format available, and take into consideration other advice it may receive.
1014
On the basis of those assurances, I believe that our existing legislation with regard to disability covers the matters contained in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that I am able to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and for the support for the amendment. In the light of the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Revocation and modification of licences]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 37, at end insert (", and
("(b) consider any complaints made to the Authority by members of the public against the licensee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 was drafted before I received the letter of 13th March, to which I have referred. It was an attempt to continue my campaign to put on the face of the Bill the necessity for a complaints procedure in a slightly different way from that which had not previously been accepted in Committee and on Report. I move the amendment simply so that the Government may put on record the assurances contained in that letter. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we, too, believe in the importance of a complaints procedure. I was similarly reassured by the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has referred.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. The amendment is a variation on Amendment No. 18 moved on Report, and an earlier amendment moved in Committee. As has been noted, it is a matter on which we have had correspondence. We have also had private discussion.
I said on Report and in correspondence that I do not believe that there is much between the noble Lord and myself on this issue. The noble Lord has advanced—as ever, effectively—points at various stages of the Bill on which we have debated the issue. However, I have not heard an argument which persuades me that we need to put squarely on the face of the Bill a requirement for the authority to take account of complaints made against individual licence holders. I have indicated that the effective discharge of the authority's duties to licence only fit and proper persons will inevitably mean that it will need to establish an effective complaints procedure. I have also indicated to the noble Lord that in the extremely unlikely event that an appropriate mechanism was not set up, the Secretary of State could direct the authority under the provisions in Clause 2 to establish one. That would—reverting to a couple of our debates at earlier stages of the Bill about Secretary of State directions—be an open direction.
The current amendment relates to a complaints procedure to the modification or revocation of a licence. That assumes that a licence is already in force. The authority will need to be able to listen to and, if necessary, investigate complaints which are made

1015
against anyone seeking a licence in the first place or seeking to renew a licence. It follows that they must also have that facility when considering whether or not to modify or revoke a licence. Indeed, one prime source of the authority's launching such revocation or modification procedures is likely to be complaints made by members of the public.
As I said earlier, there is no point of principle between us here. However, for reasons I have previously expressed, I do not believe that we need the words of the amendment on the face of the Bill. Having heard that, and sought the reassurances offered that this is a matter of record, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
("(4) The Authority may refuse to renew, revoke or suspend a license if it has reasonable grounds for being satisfied that the licensee—

(a) has supplied information in or in connection with the application for the license or its renewal that was knowingly false or misleading;

(b) has contravened any provision of this Act or regulations thereunder; or

(c) is no longer a fit and proper person to provide a security service.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it strikes me that in the Bill there is no way of disciplining those who supply information which is knowingly false or misleading in connection with an application for a licence or for its renewal. The applications are made under Clause 8(l),(2) or (3). Nor is there a specific provision to deal with a situation in which the authority discovers that a person who is the holder of a licence is no longer a fit and proper person to provide a security service as Clause 14(3) envisages. The amendment is, therefore, a suggestion to the Government to include a specific provision to deal with those points, and would give to the authority the power to take rather swifter action than might otherwise be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I realise that lawyers like to have everything in writing, if possible. If an extra clause can be added it would be regarded as desirable on those grounds alone. For myself, I would have thought that the wording of Clause 10, as it stands, was adequate to cover the case suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not going to get into a clash between the professions. Being neither a lawyer nor an accountant, I am able to take a detached Olympian view on this point. Of course I understand the nature of the amendment and the motive behind it. Certainly, the reasons as listed in the
1016
amendment are entirely valid ones for withdrawing or not renewing a licence. The first circumstance relates to the applicant having knowingly supplied false or misleading information. That is already an offence under the provisions of Clause 22 of the Bill.
The second relates to the applicant having contravened any provision of the Bill or any regulations made under it. The Bill creates a number of offences, and regulations will provide further detail governing many aspects of a licensed security operative's work. The third circumstance is that the applicant is no longer a fit and proper person to provide a security service. Clause 7 requires the published criteria for a licence application, to be successful, to include those which the authority considers show the applicants to be fit and proper persons.
I have no problems with the conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, seeks to place on the face of the Bill regarding the withdrawal or non-renewal of licences. But the Bill already requires the authority to have in mind the criteria that are applicable by virtue of Clause 7 when considering whether to modify, suspend or revoke a licence. I believe that this gives the equivalent effect to that sought by the noble Lord in his amendment.
Clause 7 requires applicants to be, in the authority's judgement, fit and proper persons. I cannot see the authority forming this judgement about an applicant whom it knows to have contravened his existing licensing conditions, to have falsified any part of his application papers, or otherwise to have misled or lied to the authority. The applicant would therefore have committed an offence under current legislation and that is pretty strong prima facie evidence that the applicant is indeed not a fit and proper person.
Therefore I do not believe that this amendment achieves any provisions that are not already available to the authority under the Bill as drafted. I recognise the virtues of clarity which the amendment brings to specific offences, but I would contend that the Bill clearly spells out the powers of the authority in respect of the judgement regarding the validity of any applicant for a licence. On the basis of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord may be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the creation of an offence punishable either on summary conviction or indictment is rather different from the revocation of a licence. Your Lordships will recall that at earlier stages I endeavoured to introduce on to the face of the Bill provisions for the reporting by the police and/or the magistrates' court and/or the Crown Court to the authority any convictions that may follow in relation to a licence holder, whether for a breach of this Bill or anything else. The proposals were not accepted. It was

1017
said that there would be arrangements in place, and so on. However, I have heard what the noble Lord said and of course I am not going to press the matter to a vote. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Arrangements for the grant of approvals]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) are providing security industry services in England and Wales and are deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this relates to the approved contractor scheme, which, your Lordships will recall, is voluntary. At an earlier stage—I think in Committee—I suggested that the approved contractor scheme should be made compulsory. The purpose of this amendment is to make it mandatory for those who are engaged in public duties as public authorities. The definition of a public authority under the Human Rights Act is in wide terms. It includes executive agencies of central government, local government and so on. However, in this particular area, most importantly, it covers prisons. Of course it is a matter of contract between the Home Office and a particular contractor who offers to supply services for prisons within the scope of this Bill, but I submit that anybody who is to undertake tasks of that kind and of a public nature should be, as a matter of principle, a member of the approved contractor scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not take the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is essential for any firm contracting to a public authority or acting as a public authority to be approved. I am concerned, as I have expressed on other occasions and in other contexts, that this new authority will have an awful lot to do and will have great responsibilities in its early stages. To make it essential on the face of the Bill that everyone acting as a public authority should have to be an approved contractor would add to the work of the authority in the early stages very considerably. It could make for inflexibility in the whole scheme. For that reason, I do not at the moment find myself in support of what is proposed. I am not necessarily against the idea that once all this is up and running and has been, going for a little while public authorities should require in their tendering mechanism that only approved contractors can tender for the appropriate contracts. I think that that might be a better way of doing it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that those contractors applying for approved contractor status would be deemed to be acting as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998. Clause 15 establishes a duty on the authority to make arrangements for granting approvals to the providers of security services who
1018
seek such approval. These arrangements must be made available to those who provide such services in England and Wales.
The noble Lord's amendment would mean that each provider of security services seeking approval would be deemed to be a public authority under the provisions of the Human Rights Act. Although the Act does not give a precise definition of a public authority, it does cover all central and local government bodies, the courts, the police, all government agencies, non-departmental public bodies, and the like. It may be helpful if I take this opportunity to confirm that the security industry authority itself, as an NDPB, would be covered by the provisions of the Act. It would be under a duty to act compatibly with rights provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights. If a person's rights were harmed, they could instigate legal proceedings against the security industry authority.
The provisions of the Act can also extend to a private body when it carries out a public function. If they regulate, direct or affect the public, or a group of the public, then they are likely to be covered by the Act. The Human Rights Act deliberately does not explain the meaning of a public authority or a public function in detail. Of course it is for the courts to interpret the Act and to decide what are "public authorities" and "public functions", and what are not. We consider it important that this discretion is left as it is, with the courts; and for that reason we cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that, having heard this explanation, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 12, leave out from second ("person") to end of line 13 and insert ("and used by him for the purposes of his business").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which goes to the question of powers of entry into domestic premises. I raised the possibility that there might be a house where the wife ran an unrelated business, and this might open up their home to the authority's private powers of entry. In his letter to me of 13th March the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, conceded that a narrow reading of Clause 19(1) might yield this interpretation. Nevertheless, he thought that the authority should not exercise its powers in such circumstances. I am paraphrasing what he said. He suggested that he might put the matter on record at Third Reading. It would be most helpful if he did.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to put the matter on record. As the noble Lord said, the amendment follows a concern that was also raised at an earlier stage.

1019
It is a helpful amendment which perhaps seeks to clarify policy in the area. The noble Lord expressed his concern earlier about the position of premises occupied by a licence holder from which his partner or wife might operate a completely unrelated business. He was concerned that this set of circumstances might bring it within the scope of the Bill. The amendment seeks to clarify that the powers of entry and inspection would only apply to premises owned or occupied by a person appearing to be a regulated person and used by them for the purposes of business.
There are no differences between our views on the issue. I agree that premises which are used exclusively for residential purposes or used by a non-licence holder to run an unrelated business should not be subject to inspections. The amendment already approved by your Lordships on Report achieves that aim and objective.
Premises used exclusively for residential purposes are excluded. Inspectors would have no cause to enter premises used for the running of a completely and totally unrelated business. The authority's duties and powers are limited to private security activities. Consequently, inspectors operating on behalf of the authority would not be able to justify entering residential premises used for an entirely different business.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. I hope that the explanation now being in the public domain, as it were, and on the record, will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should have made clear that it is not only a wife or partner, it could be anyone who was running the unrelated business. In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("conduct") and insert ("actions").
The noble Lord said: My Lord, I referred to this matter on Report on 5th March when Amendment No. 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, was dealt with. I said:
"I believe that the Minister may be referring to the actions taken while the person exercising the power is on the premises".
In part of his reply to that the noble Lord stated:
"I believe that the noble Lord is right. Here, we seek to capture the details of what occurred, what transactions took place and what was found.
That is what we describe when we talk about 'conduct'—that is the business transacted".—[Official Report, 5/3/01; col. 48.]
Subject to that discussion in the Chamber, I had recourse to the 2nd Edition of The Oxford English Dictionary in your Lordships' Library. I looked up the word "conduct". It said:
"To lead, guide … To lead, command, direct, manage … To convey; to be a channel for".
1020
None of those definitions is appropriate. I could not find an appropriate description anywhere under that word that fits what I understand to be the requirement of the Bill.
However, when looking up the word "action", it said:
"The process or condition of acting or doing … A thing done, a deed … Mode of acting".
Therefore, I believe that "actions" is a better word than "conduct". I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendment is a small but useful improvement to the drafting of the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on Report, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, when he presented his argument. During the course of those proceedings some changes were made to the clause. Without the aid of a dictionary immediately to hand, I am loath to remotely challenge his definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary of the word "conduct". But I hope to be able to persuade him that the provisions in the Bill accurately cover the issues over which he has expressed concern.
Clause 19(4) places a number of requirements on a person carrying out an inspection on behalf of the security industry authority. On Report, after helpful debate in Committee, these requirements were added to Clause 19. They seek to balance the authority's ability to enforce its licensing regime with a proper respect for the civil liberties of persons regulated by the Bill.
The noble Lord is concerned about one particular aspect; namely, the requirement in the clause for persons undertaking inspections to make a record of their "conduct", as opposed to his preferred formulation—a record of their "actions". He is concerned that the current wording of the clause limits the subject matter of the inspection record to one relating to the way in which the inspector behaves himself. That is—the noble Lord referred to it again—whether he did so well and honourably. His fear is that a clever lawyer may seek to get a client off the hook by misconstruing that word. I am all for making sure that we have clear legislation to ensure that people do not evade their responsibilities through what might be regarded as an unfair legal process.
I am grateful for the amendment of the noble Lord. We have looked again at the word in question in the light of his representations on Report. I hope to reassure the House, however, by saying that I do not believe that his fears are justified. As my noble friend explained on Report, the intention of Clause 19(4) is to require the details of what occurred during an inspection visit to be placed on record—when the inspector arrived; for what purpose; how long he stayed; what he did while there; and other relevant facts. It should be a full record of the inspection and a copy should be made available to the regulated person.
I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of the word "conduct" in the context in which it is used in this clause would lead to a conclusion that the

1021
actions of an inspector on regulated premises could legitimately go unrecorded on the inspection record. Although it would ultimately be for the courts to determine the matter in relation to any particular case, I am clear in my mind that any record which did not set out the important details of the inspection, such as I have just described, should be regarded as an inadequate record. I am also clear that the use of the word "conduct" is generally taken to embrace actions and includes also the concepts of omissions and statements. Thus, the word "conduct" appears to cover every aspect to which the noble Lord has referred. For that reason, I believe that the clause should remain unamended.
Perhaps I may also point to the requirement in Clause 20 for the authority to prepare and publish guidance on the manner in which the important powers of entry and inspection are to be used. I am quite sure that the guidance will go into further detail about the nature of the record of inspection that is to be made.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will recognise that we have taken very seriously his representations on this point. We believe that the word "conduct" covers the whole aspect of actions during the course of such an inspection. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord has not wholly convinced me with his response. Can he tell me whether any other piece of legislation uses the word "conduct" when a report on the search of premises has to be made, rather than "actions" or, indeed, another more suitable word?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that I have already confessed to the House that I am no lawyer and so I cannot give the noble Lord an immediate reply to his question. However, the Bill will become one of many Acts which permit public servants to carry out inspections. Legislation which relates to taxation and Customs and Excise contains such measures. There is no doubt that in the Bill we have followed a process whereby we have defined the manner in which inspection should be properly conducted. We have allowed a degree of freedom in the drafting to ensure that the authority itself will lay down what is to be expected as regards the conduct or, if the noble Lord prefers, the actions to be undertaken by an inspector when going into private premises.
I repeat: I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have taken seriously the points he raised on Report, but we have satisfied ourselves and, I hope, the House, that the word "conduct" is accurate and defines clearly what is expected of an inspector and how the process will be governed.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but I know that court cases often arise over the exact construction and meaning of words. If it is not made clear, it is far more likely that court action will ensue. I hope that the Minister and his advisers will look at
1022
this again closely, because I am still not convinced by what he has said. It may well be that the word that I have proposed—"actions"—is not the best word, but I am sure that it is a great deal better than the word "conduct".
However, the House is thin and time is moving on. I shall not delay the House by dividing, as I had thought I might. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Activities liable to control under the Act]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 27,1ine 19, after ("such") insert (", or under his supervision and authority,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this matter earlier in our deliberations on Amendment No. 1. It concerns accountancy staff. I know that the Minister is going to write to me. However, if he accepts this amendment, it would keep the position in play. as it were, should he wish to reverse it. I hope that he finds that acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would like to be able to accept this amendment, but I cannot do so. Perhaps I may explain carefully why that is the case. We held a debate on this matter earlier, as a result of a concern raised quite properly by the noble Lord on Report. It was then suggested that the government amendments to exclude qualified accountants should not extend to all staff in an accountancy practice.
As I indicated in our earlier debate, the Government wish to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are targeted at those specialist providers of security services whom we have stated we wish to regulate, and that they do not inadvertently catch groups which are not relevant to our policy aims and objectives. This latter group includes accountants.
The Government have accepted that the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 in Schedule 2 did not make it abundantly clear that we were not seeking to take accountants into the regulatory framework. Your Lordships' House therefore approved amendments to provide a clear exemption for accountants from the definitions of private investigators and of security consultants. Those amendments were based on exemptions for members of relevant accountancy bodies, as the noble Lord had encouraged us t o do and, indeed, as we have been encouraged to do privately. That is now defined in Clause 25.
This amendment would extend the exemption to those employees of accountancy firms who work under the authority and supervision of an accountant, but who are not members of the accountancy bodies listed in the Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about those people hired out under a contract to supply clients with specialist services. Members of the relevant accountancy bodies and their staff who are working "in-house" fall outside the scope of the Bill.
Employees of accountancy firms who are not members of the relevant accountancy bodies as now defined may, of course, be hired out to provide

1023
accountancy services. In that case, they are not providing any of the designated activities which are the focus of the Bill and would not, therefore, fall to be licensed under it. However, as I said in my response on Report, it is not necessarily the case that only members of those relevant accountancy bodies may be hired out under contract to provide services that are relevant to the provisions in the Bill.
Many of the large and well-known accountancy firms now have extremely diversified business interests and provide a wide range of services. In some cases, those services will be "designated services" as defined in the Bill. It may be the case that accountants who are members of the accountancy bodies listed in Clause 25 will take part in some or all of these services. However, even if those services are "designated activities", the accountants undertaking them are now excluded from regulation under this Bill.
However, I am quite clear in my mind that in many cases these large, diversified accountancy businesses will also hire out members of their staff who are not members of the relevant accountancy bodies to undertake activities that are designated activities as defined in the Bill. This amendment would exempt anyone undertaking those activities from the need for a licence simply by virtue of their working under the authority or supervision of a suitably qualified accountant. As I indicated on Report, I do not believe that that would be right.
Those employees, if hired out under contract, would be undertaking the same type of work as people who legitimately offer their services as private investigators or security consultants, but not as accountants. They would be offering services such as the investigation of corruption, asset recovery and fraud risk management. In the Government's view, it would be wholly anomalous for non-accountants in accountancy firms to be exempt from licensing, when private investigators and security consultants offering exactly the same services would be caught.
Indeed, since we debated the Bill on Report, I have received representations from non-accountancy companies offering precisely these types of services who argue that if we were to exclude non-accountants who undertake services similar to theirs, it would create an uneven playing field. I find the arguments wholly persuasive. The counter-argument is to say, "Yes, we are undertaking designated activities as defined by the Private Security Industry Bill, but we are employed by accountants, so we should be exempt". I cannot accept that.
I also have great difficulty with the notion, advanced on Report, that such an exclusion was needed because in today's business world it is often difficult to define strictly what is "accountancy" and what is not. I accept that there may be certain difficulties surrounding definition here, but I am not convinced that the answer to those difficulties is to give such a broad and sweeping exemption to everyone employed by an accountancy firm.
1024
For those good reasons, I continue to resist the amendment. Having heard what I have to say on the matter, and given his great experience in the world of accountancy, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister is wrong to say that I have "great" experience in the world of accountancy, although I have some. He must not exaggerate my professional career.
I accept that definitional problems exist, as the Minister suggested. I hope that he is right in his interpretation of what the Bill now says. I admit that I do not think he is right, but I hope that he is. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates and who have helped in enabling the Bill to complete its passage.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health and Social Care Bill
5.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"PURPOSES
The purposes of this Act are, inter alia, to—

(a) institute reforms relating to the National Health Service (including in health service funding, employment, public and patient involvement, scrutiny, consultation, independent advocacy, intervention powers and regulation, recruitment and discipline of general practitioners and dentists),

(b) provide authority for local pharmaceutical services' pilot schemes,

(c) extend prescribing rights,

(d) introduce provisions relating to Care Trusts and partnership arrangements,

(e) introduce free personal care (including nursing care) after an assessment of need for those in receipt of community care services, and

(f) introduce provisions relating to the control of patient information."

The noble Lord said: Given the number of amendments that have been tabled, we are in for a number of fairly long sittings in Committee. However, I make no apology for placing the issue of personal care right at the forefront of our Committee stage deliberations.
The issue of personal care draws a clear line between the approach of these Benches and, as I understand it, that of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Regrettably, the Bill promises to be a missed opportunity in that respect.
We on these Benches have strong support for our approach from a considerable number of sources—not least the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly, which originally highlighted the inequity in the current system whereby a patient receives free nursing care in hospital but is means-tested for that same nursing care in a residential home.
The Government's plans set up an artificial distinction between nursing and personal care. This will mean that many people in nursing homes, or at home, will still be means-tested for care such as being dressed, bathed or washed, which they would certainly not pay for in an NHS hospital. The classic example used by many correspondents is that of the dementia sufferer based in a residential home who requires a high level of care but who receives little medical intervention. In those circumstances such people will be paying for their personal care.
We on these Benches believe it right that all nursing and personal care should be paid for, whether in a care home or in people's own homes, according to an assessment of need. We believe, as did the Royal Commission, and as do a number of Members on the Government Back Benches who spoke in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that this is the only long-term, principled and practical solution. We believe that the risk of needing long-term care should be spread across the whole population and over the life-time of that population as the most efficient way of addressing both the risk and the cost of ensuring against it. There should be a shared responsibility between the individual and society to meet the cost of old age. At the same time, the guiding principle of policy should be to make appropriate early interventions to support people in independent living.
My party found the key recommendations of majority view set out in the report of the Royal Commission that personal care should be free, subject to an assessment of need, persuasive and we regard this as a key priority for future expenditure.
Living and housing costs are legitimate items which people should expect to meet themselves. The straightforward living costs of staying in residential care should remain the responsibility of the individual, subject to means-testing. However, personal care costs fall heavily and unexpectedly, and are beyond the control of the individual. For this reason, we believe that personal care costs should be exempted from means-testing in all settings and that they should, instead, be based on an assessment of need. These are
1026
defined by the Royal Commission as the care needs that give rise to major additional costs of frailty or disability associated with old age.
The Royal Commission went on to say:
"Personal care is care that directly involves touching a person's body (and therefore incorporates issues of intimacy, personal dignity and confidentiality), and is distinct both front treatment/ therapy (a procedure deliberately intended to cure or ameliorate a pathological condition) and from indirect care such as home-help or the provision of meals".
Between 100,000 and 125,000 people in residential settings would benefit from excluding personal care costs from the means test, as compared to the 35,000 who would benefit from free nursing care alone.
Personal care costs at home should also be exempt from charging. The Government's recent consultation paper on charging policies for home care is a profoundly depressing document. Location should not matter when people need intimate care such as bathing, dressing or feeding. It is a disgrace that in this country debt collectors are chasing after dementia sufferers for money to pay for their care. If the Bill is passed in its present form, they will simply be chasing the sons and daughters of dementia sufferers instead.
As regards the arguments advanced by the Government regarding the fact that some of the better-off may benefit, the health service is not there to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but rather to redistribute resources from the healthy to the sick. There is clear evidence from recent research carried out by the King's Fund that most people will struggle to pay for both long-term care—or long-term care insurance—and a second pension, as envisaged by the Government.
The proposed definition of "nursing care" which we shall debate later in Committee will leave care home residents unclear about what they will actually have to pay for. Indeed, it is our view that it is virtually impossible to devise a watertight definition of nursing care which will avoid disputes.
Over 15 voluntary organisations involved in the care and representation of older people have condemned the Government's plans as set out in the Bill, including Methodist Homes for the Aged, Age Concern and the Royal College of Nursing. The Scottish Executive is now moving down the path proposed by my party in the coalition. I very much hope that the Government will have the sense to do the same in England and Wales. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
In subsection (e), after "nursing care)" insert "and care by professionals supplementary to medicine"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment to the proposed new clause, I shall speak briefly also to my Amendments Nos. 265, 268 and 269 to Clause 56 of the Bill to which it relates.
All these amendments have the same goal; namely, to ensure that healthcare provided by any health professional— not just that provided by a nurse or a doctor—is made available to people in long-term care without charge.
Before setting out the case for the amendments, I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. As some Members of the Committee will know, I have the honour to be president of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, and it is my work in that capacity which, for me, makes self-evident the need to make the Bill less restrictive in defining healthcare. As well as being a trade union, the society is the professional organisation of state registered chiropodists in this country. It works both assiduously and with success on their behalf as the providers of more than 8 million appointments for patients each year. Here I pay special tribute to Pam Sabine and Hilary De Lyon, the chairman and chief executive of the society, and to their fellow officers past and present.
Much of the debate about the Bill has so far, rightly, focused on whether only care by nurses and doctors should be free, or whether personal care more generally should be provided on the same basis for everyone in long-term care. The purpose of my amendments is to face the reality that essential healthcare in the UK is provided not only by doctors and nurses, but also by other health professionals.
The professions supplementary to medicine are 12 highly important and quite distinct professions. They include, as well as chiropodists and podiatrists, speech therapists and physiotherapists among other essential health professionals, all of whom have one thing in common: they provide real, measurable, tangible, clinical, healthcare benefits.
One striking example is that the clinical skills of chiropodists and podiatrists, when properly integrated into diabetic care, can now reduce—and demonstrably have reduced—amputations among patients with diabetes by 50 per cent, while their treatment of other disabling foot pathologies helps to increase the mobility and reduce the dependency of patients more generally. This explains the Health Minister's comment on the,
"excellent contribution of podiatric surgeons to foot health",
in a recent answer to a parliamentary Question in another place.
Yet currently, where chiropody and podiatry services are provided for people in long-term care, the cost to the patient depends—strangely and illogically—not on their medical needs, or even on their financial means, but on the employment status of the chiropodist or podiatrist. If she or he is employed by the NHS the service will be free. If the chiropodist or podiatrist is self-employed and has a private contract with the long-term care institution, then a charge has to be levied by the practitioner. This is clearly anomalous. I cannot believe that Ministers are content to leave the position as it now stands.
It may be argued that provision for people in long-term care is no different from that for other patients. Widely variable standards of NHS provision now mean that patients in some areas receive free NHS care, while elsewhere they have to pay. But that is plainly unsatisfactory and unjust, and the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists will go on campaigning to improve the general level of NHS provision to that of the existing best.
This is why the society now argues with such conviction for services to be provided free of charge and regardless of age. Keeping older people mobile can prevent many other ailments occurring. For example, older people who cannot walk are liable to become increasingly inactive, exposing them both to respiratory problems and depression, often resulting in complete dependency on care. Timely care from a chiropodist or podiatrist can prevent this happening and avoid unnecessary further costs to the NHS.
It was widely hoped that the Government's review of the Feet First report, which was concluded last year but has not so far been published, would by now have provided consistent and clear guidelines on the proper provision of NHS chiropody and podiatry by all health authorities and other commissioners within the service. There is still time for a rethink and, as the Minister is aware, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists is seeking another meeting with him on this important issue.
Meanwhile, let us be clear about the here and now. Chiropody/podiatry is not personal care; but nor is it nursing care. It not only protects mobility and improves quality of life, but also specifically and undoubtedly treats medical conditions and alleviates clinical pain. Why then should healthcare be defined so narrowly as to deny patients the often vitally important help that chiropodists and podiatrists, like the other professions supplementary to medicine, can provide? What possible defence is there for treating their help as an optional extra—as the "a" in et cetera, as it were, of British healthcare?
The Health Minister also said in another place:
"Our definition [of nursing care] is not task based".
That is why I have framed my amendments—both here and again at Clause 56—as generically as possible; and I look forward to a positive response from my noble friend Lord Hunt when he replies to the debate. In particular, I hope for his assurance today that all chiropody/podiatry provided for a person who is in long-term care and clinical need will automatically be available without charge.
I ask for that assurance all the more urgently since, under the Care Standards Act 2000, care homes must now include foot care in their residents' needs assessment. They must also ensure that residents' NHS entitlements are upheld and promoted. Thus all that I am seeking is consistency in legislative provision. This means ensuring that state registered chiropodists, along with others in the professions supplementary to medicine, are recognised within the Health and Social Care Bill as providers of essential care without charging.
Although I have set out the case for the amendments mainly by reference to chiropody and podiatry, of course it can be argued just as strongly in terms of the essential role of other professions supplementary to medicine in providing healthcare. For a person stricken by a stroke, the work of a speech therapist is often critically important and, if provided in a longterm care setting, there should be no doubt but that it will be free. Likewise, when a frail elderly person falls and fractures a limb, the work of a physiotherapist can be hugely beneficial to her or his healthcare. So here again there should be no doubt but that it will be free in the case of long-term care.
Many other examples could be given of the case for inserting, after nursing care in the clause, care provided by the other professions supplementary to medicine. As I said earlier, they demonstrate that healthcare is not just about doctors and nurses. Ask any self-respecting doctor or trained nurse and they will tell you that to say otherwise is now barbarously old fashioned. Healthcare is also very much about chiropodists and podiatrists and all their fellow professionals in the professions supplementary to medicine. Ask any diabetic, any stroke victim, or any frail elderly person who has suffered a serious fall. That is the case for my amendments and I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may suggest that noble Lords cut short the discussion on the amendment. It proposes a purpose clause. Such clauses have their uses, but they should at least amplify the Long Title of a Bill. I do not believe that this purpose clause does so, for starters. Subsection (c), which refers to extending prescribing rights, says less than the Long Title, as does subsection (f). Subsection (e), which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to amend, talks about something that does not even feature in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made all this in order by grouping it with Amendment No. 260, which proposes that there should be free nursing care. I suggest that it is quite wrong to discuss this in isolation from all the other amendments, many of which are most important and very much to the point; and. indeed, to which I believe the Government will listen. I do not know how recently he discussed the matter of free personal care with his Scottish colleagues in the Scots Parliament. However, I met a few of them last night and I gather that the whole matter is up in the air because no one knows who will pay for it. I do not honestly believe that we should spend much time on the matter. I personally could not support the amendment. I do not know what my noble friend, or the Government, will do in this respect. I think that we should move on.
Lord Lipsey: I am tempted to follow the noble Baroness because we have many more detailed amendments to the Government's proposals on which we could more profitably spend the bulk of our time. I shall not detain the Committee for long. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made his case, and I believe that we should consider briefly one or two arguments on the other side.
1030
The noble Lord gave the game away to quite a considerable extent right at the beginning of his remarks. He began by saying that you get your bathing free in a hospital, but that if you are in a home you may have to pay for it if you are better off. That is quite true. It is also true that you get your food free in a hospital, while you do not get it free in a residential home: you have to pay for it, if you are well off enough to be able to afford to do so.
However, the noble Lord, is not proposing that food should be free in residential homes; just personal care. Whatever solution you come to, wherever you draw the line when you look at the difference between what is paid for and what is free, you will find that there are anomalies. There simply is not a clear-cut guillotine which makes clear what should be one side of it and what should be the other. We shall pursue a chimera if we try to find such a dividing line. We should judge these matters on their merits.
New Members of this Chamber may be astonished to discover that they often hear the same speeches four times: on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. One can hear the same speeches six times on this issue because we had a pre-run round the course on the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on 17th January. We shall have two "goes" at discussing issues surrounding the provision of free personal care.
I do not want to repeat my Second Reading Speech when I argued—I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, refute this—that the cost of free personal care (which is already very high at more than £1.2 billion even on the wholly inadequate calculation of the Royal Commission) will go up not by five times, as estimated by the majority of members of the Royal Commission, but by between 12 and 20 times by the middle of the next century. Free personal care would be the cuckoo in the nest and if we provided it, we would have to sacrifice services to older people—care assistants, care homes, clothes and the care provided to keep people in their own homes. Those items would be sacrificed to pay for services for the most well-off 25 per cent of the population. I do not want to go over that argument again.
I wish to address three points to those on the crowded Benches opposite who have clearly decided to adopt this issue as the kernel of their election appeal. My first point is a kind of constitutional point. Really big spending is a matter for the other place according to the rules of privilege. We are talking about a huge expenditure commitment. I would find it strange if this Chamber felt that it could override the judgment of elected Members. The other place was in favour of free nursing care but not in favour of free personal care.
Secondly, it is terribly important that we do not delay the Bill. There is a large number of amendments. We had a debate on Second Reading when points were made about the broad question we are discussing. However, there is much detail to be discussed on the issue of free nursing care. If the Bill is lost because we examine it for too long, the consequences will be serious as the provision of free nursing care is

1031
supposed to start on 1st October. In the case of most Bills, it does not much matter if they are passed this year or next year. We shall get them eventually and not much is lost by delay. However, this Bill concerns people who, on average, spend only 18 months or so in nursing homes. If their free nursing care is postponed for a year, during that year they will fail to get the benefits to which they are entitled and which the Government propose to give them. Therefore, we should be careful not to delay the Bill.
Thirdly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my many friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches who know that I am close to them on many issues will accept my next point. I spend much of my life campaigning for electoral reform. It is a great cause but not much loved by many on this side of the Chamber. Why is it that it is always so difficult to persuade the Prime Minister to go the full hog on that? He thinks that the Liberal Democrats are decent people. If they would have me, I sometimes think that I should like to join them; they are so decent.
However, at the end of the day, the Liberal Democrat Party is not serious as it will not face up to the kind of decisions that have to be taken in government regarding how scarce resources are best deployed for the maximum good. That is the fundamental issue here. If money grew on trees—as the majority of the members of the Royal Commission seemed to think that it did—of course it would be acceptable to provide free personal care. However, money does not grow on trees but has to be raised painfully from taxpayers. One has to take painful decisions as regards allocating it between competing priorities such as education, health, transport and the rest. To make a snap judgment to provide free personal care and let everything else go hang is to my mind not a serious approach to policy making and makes it difficult to achieve the truly plural politics that I should like to see.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: On behalf of my party, I support the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, which I imagine is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They should both be supported. The arguments which have been deployed against them are not effective. We are told that we should not override the Commons. There is a perfectly good procedure between the two Houses whereby we try to reach agreement. We have not yet reached the stage of trying to override the Commons. However, we are entitled to ask the Commons to think again. We have a perfectly worthwhile reason for asking the Commons to think again.
The argument which the noble Lord deployed as regards delaying the Bill does not hold water either. I have never considered that a good argument. It is used time and time again at various points of the parliamentary year or the parliamentary Session. As the noble Lord has just said, in the end what is wanted and what is necessary and what is right usually can be
1032
accepted. I do not attempt to deny that people will suffer a sad loss if there is delay. I should be sorry if that occurred, but it is much better to put in place correct provisions that will last through to the next century than to worry oneself sick about people experiencing problems over the next 18 months. As I say, I do not think that that argument holds water.
Nor do I think the argument valid that the Liberal Democrat Party is not serious about these matters because it does not have to face up to allocating scarce resources. The Liberal Democrat Party, of which I used to be a member, has thought the matter through. It has established its priorities. I speak from experience of preparing for general elections on behalf of that party. If it is to include the measure in its election manifesto—as the other side of the Chamber seems to think that it will—no doubt it has already been costed extremely carefully. The party has faced up to priorities and has made a judgment. In my view, it is the right judgment and my party certainly will support it.
Lord Rix: My head having been chopped off by the guillotine of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take my head out of the basket, tuck it under my arm and support Amendments Nos. 1, 262 and 260.
I must confess that I have been outflanked. When I tabled my own amendment, I seemed likely to have the honour of firing the first shots over Clause 56. But the ingenuity of Amendments Nos. 1 and 260 let the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in first, followed closely by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, with Amendment No. 2. But no doubt my time will come in due course!
The argument against a broad definition of personal care and exemption from charges, and matching that broad definition, is essentially one of cost and priorities. Less income from charges means greater cost for providing services, and costs incurred in one direction cannot, unless resources are increased accordingly, be incurred on other things. But we are not discussing whether the state rather than the individual should pay for very rich people, or even rich people, to have their flowers arranged or their nails manicured; we are talking about basic disability needs. I doubt whether anyone reading this draft clause (Amendment No. 260) would regard the services listed there as anything other than basic. As a civilised society, we ought to ensure that these basic services are free wherever they are provided and by whoever they are provided, including the care proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in regard to supplementary medical practitioners.
I have no objection to people who are financially well off or reasonably well off being required to pay for board and lodging and the frills of care—all the grapes they wish to consume. But no one should be asked to pay for the disability care basics. On behalf of Mencap

1033
and numerous other disability and older people's charities, I support Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 260 accordingly.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I made the simple resolution that my own intervention would be shorter than his. The grouping of the proposed purpose clause, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 260 brings us to the difficult but important issue of the definition of nursing care and what we do about other forms of personal care. We greatly welcome the Government's commitment to fund free NHS nursing care for all who need it. If we were wholly satisfied with the definition in the Bill as it stands, we could say thank you. I advise the Minister that I sometimes do say thank you to the Government; it is not very common, but I sometimes do it.
Clause 56, to which we are coming, refers only to nursing care by a registered nurse covering the provision of care itself and the planning, supervision and delegation of the provision of care but excluding services which do not need to be provided by a registered nurse. This would exclude services provided by health care assistants who carry out a lot of essential tasks. On the other hand, Amendment No. 1 refers much more widely to free personal care which is evidently wider than services provided by a registered nurse. Amendment No. 260 is even more specific with a list of seven types of personal care services.
Experience in your Lordships' House has taught me that although many parliamentarians like purpose clauses, legal eagles do not and they are unlikely to be converted on the road to Damascus or Westminster. Therefore, in relation to personal care and assessment of need, we are dealing with a paving amendment. I do not think that we shall get anything more than that. I like to treat my intervention in the same way as a paving intervention, if there is such a thing. While there is a huge difficulty about definition and the risk of putting into legislation lists of services that may become outdated if there was a policy decision, it is none the less true that the current definition of nursing care in Clause 56 should be looked at again. That would be the consequence of the amendments; there would be a change. We need to recognise that we should include some other services which most people would consider to be an integral part of personal and nursing care. They would think it was one sole type of care and would not make a great distinction between them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It is very difficult to separate personal and nursing care. If a person is turned at night to prevent pressure sores, is that considered to be personal care or nursing care? If a person develops pressure sores, nursing care becomes necessary, and that can cost an immense amount. In the end, the patient can land up in hospital. The turning of a patient can be undertaken by an assistant or a nurse. This is vitally important because pressure sores are costing the country millions of pounds.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am conscious of the comments made about procedure so I am not sure whether I should be speaking. I remind the House that I am chair of a health authority. I want to make an administrative point, and a moral one from a personal view. The administrative point is that I have asked my health authority, if we were implementing this legislation today, how we might go about it. I recognise that we will receive fantastic guidance from the department—as always; and, as always, the department is glad to have views fed back to it in advance. I shall take the liberty of doing that via this statement.
From our point of view, it is simple. At present when persons are assessed to go into residential nursing care, we have an inspection registration unit responsible for ensuring that the appropriate standards of nursing and care are available for those patients. A typical percentage ratio would be 65 per cent of services provided by carers and 35 per cent provided by registered nurses. We do not investigate precisely what the registered nurses do; I do not believe that that is our job. They may decide to brush a patient's hair as a beneficial treatment for the scalp or because they are trying to develop a relationship with that patient. Were this Bill enacted now, we would pick up the bill for the 35 per cent that is currently paid by the residents of that nursing home. We have a clear administrative way of dealing with this that does not get us into the list of what is personal care. We should be cautious of doing anything other than leaving that in the hands of nurses who know perfectly well what they are doing and when they need to intervene with particular patients and not others.
We reassess patients every three months. We look carefully at patients who become more ill with regard to whether to move them. Currently, we have eight patients in my health authority who would have gone into NHS continuing care, but we feel that it is wrong to move them and we have paid for the additional nursing care.
On the ground this feels a lot easier from a health authority perspective than it feels in your Lordships' House. I would argue strongly that we should not include in this legislation lists which would tie the hands of nurses with regard to what they can do and which would create a division in the seamless care we wish to see in our nursing homes.
The second point I make relates to costs. I am conducting a review of elderly care in Hertfordshire. If I had the money that I believe is quoted in the documents and by the Royal Commission, I would not spend it in the way proposed in this amendment. That is because I have looked at all our care for the elderly. I would spend the money first on ensuring that elderly people at home who fall do not end up on trolleys in A & E departments. Currently, that is what happens because we do not have the capacity for teams of doctors and nurses to go out from intermediate or continuing care facilities to help them at home or to take them directly into a facility that would give them

1035
respite care. Secondly, I would look carefully at intermediate care where we have very little, if any, physiotherapy or occupational therapy—and I would invest in that. Thirdly, I would invest in ripping down some of the buildings we laughingly call NHS continuing care facilities and build purpose-built ones appropriate to the needs of our elderly population.
This does not mean that in an ideal world I would not want personal care; but I ask that we think carefully about the moneys we have available and could have available. This is not where I would put the money. There is a lot more to be done for elderly people. There are priorities that must come ahead of this.
Baroness Barker: Some months ago the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, wrote an article in one of the broadsheet newspapers in which he gave six reasons why he was not a Liberal. I read that article and agreed with him on all six counts. I want to make it clear that, having listened to the arguments of the noble Lord on these matters over the past few months and watched him bravely go into the lion's den at pensioners' meetings, I am convinced that he is as passionate about the needs of older people as I am. We have different conclusions and priorities, but I do not doubt his sincerity.
The noble Lord referred to previous discussions on the subject in the House. I had hoped that he would rehearse some of the arguments which are germane to this issue. One of his most powerful arguments is that if something is free demand for it will inevitably increase. That argument was put forward by those who opposed the creation of the NHS in 1948. It was resisted at that time and the NHS was created. On the morning that the NHS came into being, healthcare workers in Birmingham went to work early, barricaded themselves in their offices and waited for the hordes to descend. At nine o'clock a short and orderly British queue formed.
It was right to resist such an argument in 1948; it is right to resist it today. From my experience, the idea that older people will ask for help to go to the toilet or to eat when they do not need it does not ring true. Older people value highly their personal independence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked a valid question: why are we discussing this issue now? One reason is that the Government have put forward a number of different proposals emanating from the NHS Plan but without sufficient transparency to enable us to understand the future of healthcare. I refer in particular to the intermediate care guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, states that £1.2 billion is too much to spend on personal care. We know—the Government have told us several times over—that £900 million will be made available for intermediate care. But we do not know how that will be made available. Because of the lack of transparency on the definition of nursing care we must now concentrate our minds on personal care.
1036
Opponents of the measure argue that 70 per cent of people already in residential care have all their personal care paid for and that the measure will subsidise those who are well off. Many people in nursing residential care already have to pay a considerable amount for their personal care. An individual with an income of approximately £185 per week may spend a third of his income on personal care.
The Government will say that things will change in the future because people will not have to sell their house. Those people may not have to sell their house immediately but the proceeds from the eventual sale will go towards the cost of their care. Although at a deferred stage, people with low incomes will still have to sell their house.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, argued for priorities. We shall discuss those in depth. Some of us cannot yet see the funding priorities in the detail of the Bill: we do not know from where the new money, as opposed to the recycled money, will come. We are told that there will be regulation and guidance. Until they are in place we must ensure that those who are in greatest need have those needs met.
The creation of the welfare state in 1948 was referred to as a settlement with the British people. At the heart of that settlement was an understanding that those most in need would have those needs provided for through taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, may agree that the heart of the issue relates to taxation and priorities. On these Benches, we are not satisfied that the Government have made clear with sufficient transparency and clarity which needs of older people will be met. The measure appears to be a tax on age and vulnerability. That is not acceptable to Members on these Benches.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In a sense we are having another Second Reading debate. I shall try to be brief in my response because in essence the Government's answer is the same as that given at Second Reading and in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Ashley a few weeks ago.
Of course, we are determined to ensure that we do everything we can to improve health and social care for older people. That is why the NHS Plan set out how we would invest £1 billion a year in new services for older people by 2003–04 and a further £360 million in easing the personal costs faced by people entering long-term residential care.
This is a substantial investment of public money. It is also a major step forward in terms of fairness, equity and better care. Clearly, the Government have had to face difficult decisions on where to spend that additional resource. In rejecting, as we have done, the Royal Commission's recommendation on personal care we have taken a deliberate decision to spend the resources available to us on improving the quality and range of services provided for older people and those with disabilities with particular emphasis on services which will help those older people regain as much independence as possible—services which will support them in their own homes, and services tailored to their individual needs.

1037
As noble Lords well know, personal care is currently provided on a means-tested basis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, that means that seven out of 10 people in residential accommodation receive free some or all of their personal care. I understand the point she made. Nevertheless, it is a fact that is often lost in debate on these issues.
It is also wrong to ignore the other changes we are making which I believe are substantial improvements: raising the capital limits at which people become eligible for the means test; and disregarding the value of a person's home for the first three months in residential accommodation which will mean that the moderately well off will have more of their care paid for from the public purse.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that it is a question of cost and priorities. Making personal care free, I believe, would in effect lock in place the inadequate services which older people currently receive. Not one extra person would be helped to stay in his or her own home, or to receive a piece of equipment which would transform their ability to cope at home. The services would not be extended so that more people could benefit from a greater range of better services.
It is a difficult choice but I believe that the Government are right to choose to invest those available resources in changing fundamentally the way that our care system supports older people. I believe that investment in personal care would very much inhibit that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, frequently cast doubt on intermediate care. She asked for transparency. I believe that we have been transparent about our aim: to spend £900 million by the year 2003–04; and, as part of that programme, to enable us to have 5,000 extra intermediate care beds, and 1,700 supported care places enabling around 150,000 more people a year to regain their independence or avoid going into hospital—services which would be provided free. We have a target for the NHS of 1,500 more intermediate care beds in 2001–02 compared with 1999–2000, with an extra 60,000 then receiving intermediate care services.
Health authorities are also planning to provide intermediate care services for an additional 42,000 people in the coming year. We already have examples of imaginative schemes being put into place. They include short-term programmes of intensive therapy and rehabilitation in a residential setting such as a community hospital to enable people to regain the physical functioning and confidence to return safely to their own home. My noble friend Lord Morris may be interested to know that the schemes involve not just nurses, but physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and members of other professions allied to medicine helping patients regain or maximise their ability for independent living. There are also hospital at home schemes, which provide intensive support in the patient's home and avoid the need for admission to hospital.
1038
I could quote many examples of schemes that are helping people regain their independence and maintain it for as long as possible. We will build on that, because we are committed to improving services for older people. The National Service Framework for Older People will include setting standards for care. All older people, including those with dementia, can expect improved services.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not remember him saying anything about money. Although the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, postulated that the Liberal Democrats had carefully costed their proposals. I have my doubts. If we add up all the Liberal Democrat spending commitments that have been announced in the past few days, it is very difficult to square them with proposals to raise income tax by 1p. It would have been helpful if the noble Lord had come to the debate with some concept of how those extra resources could be raised.
In conclusion on the key debate, we believe that investing in the new, improved services is the right choice. It would be wrong to ignore the extraordinary advance that is being made by ending the anomaly that only people in nursing homes can be charged for the care that they receive from a registered nurse. That care would be free through the NHS in any other setting. That will help 35,000 people at any one time who currently have to pay for their nursing care. They could save up to £5,000 a year during a stay in a nursing home.
I suspect that we shall debate the definition of nursing care at some length in Committee. All that I would say at this stage is that through the definition that we have used in the Bill the Government are simply seeking to create a level playing field. That definition most closely resembles the extra care that a person would expect to receive in a nursing home as opposed to residential care. Of course we shall come back to that.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, there are always risks involved in listing the functions of nurses and care assistants or picking a particular illness or the issues that a person is suffering from and asking that question. The appropriate person to carry out that task will depend on the clinical assessment. In a sense, that is entirely consistent with the Bill's proposal on the role of registered nurses in nursing homes.
I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Morris referred to the role of professions supplementary or allied to medicine. I strongly agree that it is not simply an issue of doctors and nurses. The NHS Plan makes it abundantly clear that we see an important role for all the professions involved in wider health care. I have already mentioned the intermediate care role played by many therapists and professionals. I shall be happy to meet with the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists to discuss the issues further, particularly the point that he raised about Feet First.
The NHS has a duty to provide healthcare to any member of the public as reasonably required. If the NHS has assessed a health need, residents of care

1039
homes should already receive NHS services direct from the NHS in the same way as any of us would receive services from a GP, a physiotherapist or other members of the health professions under the responsibility of the National Health Service.
This is a straight issue of priorities. I think that the Government have taken the right decision. It has been a difficult decision, but I am convinced that the change in relation to nursing care provided by a registered nurse, other changes that we have made on the disregard and the massive spending on intermediate care are the best use of the additional resources that we have made available and will achieve much more for the people of this country than simply bowing to the altar of free personal care.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: May I ask the Minister a question for clarification? Let us consider the case of someone who has invested £100,000 in a pension fund and is receiving that pension and their old age pension, but they live in rented accommodation and have £2,000 in their current account and no other liquid assets. How would the £18,500 disregard be calculated in that case?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My assumption is that the calculation is based on the income that is received rather than a grossed up pension, which I think the noble Lord is referring to. I shall write to him if I have got that wrong.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. I greatly value the support of a number of noble Lords for Amendments Nos. 1 and 260, particularly those on the Cross Benches. I hope that the points made in the debate have helped to overcome the qualms of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on whether we should be debating the issue at this time of day. I hope that she will join us when we are engaged in happy debate at 2 a.m. on the definition of nursing care.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My objection is that any party could table such a clause at any time and include a later clause in the same grouping so that we discussed a clause out of order. If we did that all the time, we should make a tossed green salad of the Order Paper. That is my only point.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hear what the noble Baroness says, but paving amendments are well known and well established as a device for having debate at points convenient to the House.
I shall not run through the contrary arguments to the points put by some noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rehearsed a number of arguments that he has used before, including the doomsday scenario on cost and the constitutional case, which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, dealt with successfully. If we were never able to override the Commons on a matter of cost, there would be very few things that we could debate without being in fear and trepidation of the
1040
Treasury. The timetable for debate is largely controlled by the Government. The debate in the Commons was truncated by a new procedure in Committee. Only this House will be able to debate the issues in a proper fashion.
I do not normally accuse the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of polemic, but he almost suggested that the Royal Commission was not serious in its conclusions. I found the Royal Commission extremely serious in its conclusions. It determined the priorities and did an extremely effective job; but, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a dissentient. I do not believe that it can be concluded from the report that Sir Stewart Sutherland thought that money grew on trees. That is a rather dismissive way of considering the report. As regards Sir Stewart's intentions in terms of his party allegiance, we shall no doubt have many happy discussions about that in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, made a much more serious intervention in terms of priorities, and a number of her points need to be answered. If "nursing care" is defined in the same way as the Government have defined it, there are major anomalies because healthcare assistants are not included in that definition. I believe that our proposals will help elderly people at home. They will allow them greater independence.
The Minister's point that our proposals provide no further assistance to older people is totally incorrect. I believe that the provision of free personal care, particularly in a domiciliary setting, will have a major impact on older people. The Minister said that not one extra person would be enabled to stay in his or her own home; that is not the case. We need to ground our case in the preventative value, which we believe is extremely substantial, of having free personal care available.
I accept the Minister's case on intermediate care. As my noble friend Lady Barker said, it is still insufficiently clear exactly what it constitutes or how it will be delivered. But the Government have chosen to use it as their flagship, on which they are spending £900 million. That is a priority that they have set themselves. We have decided to set ourselves an additional priority. We do not decry intermediate care and rehabilitation and everything that goes with it—it is very important—but personal care is also a high priority.
Finally, I cannot expect the Minister to conduct his research into our alternative budget, published only two weeks ago, or to read the very clear statement in it about how we would pay for personal care out of a 50 per cent tax rate on those earning over £100,000, or about the cost, which we estimate will be £750 million per year in the early stages. However, I do not believe that we should be accused of having failed to consider the cost and the tax-raising implications of personal care. We realise that it amounts to a massive commitment, not lightly undertaken. The importance of the issue is one of the reasons that we thought it right to hold this debate in prime time in this Chamber.
I do not believe that the Government's proposals create a level playing field. On the contrary, they create an extremely rutted pitch. The personal care which we

1041
envisage would level that playing field and deliver the outcome that the Minister believes his commitment to nursing care would deliver. This is a very important issue, especially for all the organisations that have contacted us over the months since the Royal Commission reported its conclusions. There is a huge sense of disappointment in the country about the Government's proposals.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his reply and for referring so warmly to the importance of the work of chiropodists and podiatrists and the other professions supplementary to medicine.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for condemning the practice of making the same speech in one debate after another. Well said. But not every participant in this debate is a serious offender. My speech today, like that of my good and longstanding friend, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was my first on this Bill and, like him, I have no intention of competing with the serial offenders in our midst. Naturally, I should like to discuss the Minister's response to my amendments with the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, not least in fairness to my noble friend— before deciding whether to return to the fray—and thus I reserve my position with regard to the later stages of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 2, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 1.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Avebury, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Razzall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Rennard, L

Clement-Jones, L.

Rix, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ezra, L.

Roper, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Mar and Kellie, E,

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Methuen, L.

Walmsley, B.

Newby, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1042

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Privy Seal)

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brennan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burnham, L.

[Teller]

Carter, L.[Teller]

MacKenzie of Culkein, L

Chandos, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Serota, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Filkin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gilbert, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Thornton, B.

Goudie, B.

Turnberg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L

Grenfell, L.

Warner, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Winston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
(1) It shall be the duty of any person or body exercising functions or otherwise providing services under this Act to prevent discrimination against any class of persons receiving services under this Act, including discrimination by reason of age.
(2) It shall be the duty of any relevant authority and any other body exercising functions under this Act to publish an annual statement of the measures they have taken to prevent discrimination against any class of persons receiving services under this Act, including discrimination by reason of age."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4, which relates to age discrimination. Despite constant urging, this Government's failure to outlaw age discrimination during their term of office is a massive disappointment to all those involved in the care and representation of older people.
The Secretary of State was quoted in the not too dim and distant past as saying:
"I will not tolerate anything which smacks of age discrimination in the NHS".
Yet, the fact is that this Government have not done nearly enough to prevent it. They did not agree to an investigation into age discrimination in the NHS which, pre-election, they pledged to do. The national confidential inquiry into perioptic deaths in November 1999 referred to staff shortages and lack of experience leading directly to the deaths of older people. There have been restrictions on heart bypass operations, heart transplants and cardiac rehabilitation for older people. Kidney dialysis and transplants have been refused to patients over the age of 70. There are no public health fitness targets for those over the age of 65 in Our Healthier Nation. We all know of the stories of delays in older people being seen by doctors when admitted to hospital. However, the fact is that two out of three acute beds in the NHS are occupied by people over the age of 75. Therefore, this is a major issue.
We know of the scandals that have taken place. In one case, "Not for resuscitation" was written across a patient's toes. Diamorphine has been administered without medical justification and without consultation with relatives. We have heard of cases of denial of food and drink or food supplements to patients, and the denial of hip operations for older people.
Throughout, the principle seems to have been forgotten that we all have a right to treatment based on clinical need and not age. Age Concern's report on discrimination in the NHS, Turning Your Back on Us, was published in 1999. It put the case very cogently for a duty not to discriminate within the NHS. An Age Concern survey of 1,000 patients at the end of 1999 found that health was, of course, a key concern of older people. However, its survey of GPs found that 77 per cent said that rationing on the basis of age takes place in the NHS.
The most recent report by Age Concern, Speaking Out, which was published in November last year, showed that ill treatment and discrimination against the elderly is still rife. A report published last year by the Association of Community Health Councils on accident and emergency departments demonstrates horrendous discrimination against the elderly. Elderly patients are rushed to hospital but are then sometimes left to die on trolleys. One in five of us is aged 55 or over, and 42 per cent of NHS resources is devoted to the elderly. If we do not get the matter right in relation to the elderly, we are failing horribly.
I know that the National Service Framework for Older People is due to be published shortly. But that, by itself, is not enough. We need to create a positive legal duty and a positive culture of care. It is not only a matter of resources; above all, it is a matter of respect. That should be enshrined in legislation.
We on these Benches argued on previous occasions in relation to both the Care Standards Bill and the Health Bill that there should be such a duty in
1044
legislation. This Bill presents another opportunity for the Government to accept the need for a clear duty not to discriminate. We shall press hard for that throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: We are fully in accord with the spirit of the amendment, as, I believe, are the Government. I cannot express the case any more cogently than the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has introduced. I am not sure what response my noble friend the Minister will give, but there are two possibilities. My noble friend may say that it is unnecessary because it is already enshrined in guidance, or he may say that unfortunately it brings within its ambit all sorts of other things that were not intended by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Discrimination by reason of age is not just about being old. For example, there are a number of thresholds at which point it is assumed that certain treatments will not be available. The standard protocols on breast cancer screening make assumptions about appropriate age ranges for screening to take place. Noble Lords want to adopt the principle that an assessment is done on the basis of an individual's needs and requirements, not on the basis of the standard application of protocols.
The amendment refers to "any class of persons", and I hope that that is not so widely defined as to make it impossible for there to be protocols on treatment. It is important to have clear guidelines on the provision of treatment by the medical profession which are capable of interpretation in the light of individual needs.
While I embrace the spirit of the amendment, I hope that a way can be found to achieve its objectives rather than bringing in all sorts of other factors, which would be unhelpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I welcome the opportunity to debate this important subject, which has been debated frequently in your Lordships' Chamber in the past two years, for reasons that are entirely understandable.
My first response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as my noble friend Lord Harris foreshadowed, must be that the matter is enshrined in legislation. The whole ethos of the NHS must be to ensure fair and equal treatment to all. I refer the noble Lord to Section 1 of the NHS Act 1977, which places a duty on the NHS to provide a comprehensive health service for all. That is the starting point and the framework under which the health service must operate in providing a service to all citizens in this country.
I can go further and say that the Government have consistently stated that discrimination on grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or age is wholly unacceptable. I very much reject the

1045
charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government have not taken action to ensure that that is carried out in practice.
The NHS Plan sets out our vision for healthcare services in this country, which must be built around the needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and carers. The NHS of the 21st century must respond to the needs of different groups in society, whatever their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability or sexuality. We are committed to ensuring that the NHS will treat patients as individuals and with respect for their dignity.
I shall give some examples of the action we have taken. I firmly believe that unless we have the right approach to staffing in terms of equal opportunity, we shall not be providing services to the whole population in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones wishes.
The NHS Plan introduces a standard to improve working lives and makes clear that every member of staff in the NHS is entitled to work in an organisation that can prove that it is investing in improving diversity and tackling discrimination and harassment. We are tackling harassment of staff, including racial harassment.
The "positively diverse" initiative brings together a service-wide consortium of healthcare and other partners to improve access and participation for all sections of local communities in the healthcare work force. We have set targets to increase minority ethnic representation in executive posts at board level to 7 per cent by the end of March 2004.
It is extremely important to set the foundation in which to eliminate discrimination in service delivery. We are facing up to inequalities in health, and launched the Acheson inquiry into health inequalities. We published the White Paper, Our Healthier Nation, and announced new health inequalities targets. Tackling inequalities is a key issue for health action zones.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to national service frameworks, and said that they were not sufficient. I believe that such frameworks are the ideal vehicle to ensure high quality and consistent provision of services throughout the country. We know that it has been a persistent sin of the NHS to have an inconsistent and patchy service. The national service framework for older people will be the ideal vehicle to raise standards in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has rightly suggested. The Commission for Health Improvement is designed to allow us to examine the progress of the NHS and to address issues of access to healthcare.
I am not persuaded that defining legislation is the way forward. The fundamental duty of the NHS is laid down in the 1977 Act. The issue is not about adding to that legislation, but ensuring that we implement its provisions effectively in the National Health Service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will understand that the arrangements that we are putting in place, the targets in the NHS Plan and the national service framework for older people, which will be
1046
published shortly, will enable the NHS to tackle the issues, which the noble Lord has rightly raised, more effectively.
With regard to clinical treatments for older people, I can tell the noble Lord that I would deplore any such arbitrary age limit to which he referred. The treatment of older people must be based on clinical assessment alone.
Baroness Barker: I can tell from the Minister's face that he thinks that I am about to ask about the national service frameworks, but I am not. I want to ask him to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about protocols for treatment having to be based on factors other than age.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Whether we are talking about protocol for treatment, or the clinical policies adopted in individual hospitals, the Government have said consistently that arbitrary age limits are not supported. The issue in the end is about an individual's clinical assessment made by a doctor.
Lord Clement-Jones: I entirely recognise the Minister's sincerity and genuine belief that new legislation is not the way forward. I am delighted to have elicited from him that he regards Section 1 of the 1977 Act as being as good as the amendment that I am proposing today, although I find that a little difficult to believe. As far as I know, no one has ever sued under Section 1 of the 1977 Act. I do not believe that medical negligence lawyers are lining up behind ambulances to use that Act, but I may be entirely mistaken.
I recognise that there is a litigation-averse feeling both in the NHS and more widely in the department itself. But that should not stop us considering the most effective way of preventing discrimination in the future. Time will tell. The Minister clearly believes that a national service framework is the ideal method of improving standards. I find that a little bit tall. They are relatively new instruments and we have the Commission for Health Improvement to help enforce them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I can intervene and explain to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, why national service frameworks offer the best vehicle for taking forward these issues.
If we look back at the history of the NHS we can see, and my office contains, many reports which have been produced and designed to improve the provision of a specific service. The problem with that is that reports are produced without any connection to implementation, particularly in relation to resources.
The whole point of national service frameworks is to come forward with realistic plans for the implementation of changes in the health service which can reasonably be expected to be implemented because of the resources available and the robust performance management system that is adopted. That is why

1047
national service frameworks represent a much more effective way of ensuring changes in services than has been the case historically in the NHS.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I am a fairly rusty lawyer and am certainly not about to give a lecture on the law of tort. But lawyers are used to having a set of standards by which they judge whether or not somebody is guilty of malpractice, negligence or maladministration. Of course the national service frameworks are an extremely good method of testing the general level of standards that should be applicable. But it is rather like the Human Rights Act. That was an extremely valuable piece of legislation. It means that there are tests and that the whole system in government and the way we treat people has been tightened up. Why should it be any different in terms of adopting a clause of this nature within the NHS? Of course there will be cost implications and administrative tightening-up that will need to be carried out.
We are clearly going to return to this subject, no doubt on this Bill and in the future. There is a difference in relation to means; I do not believe there is any difference as to ends. Time will tell whether the Minister's optimism in national service frameworks is justified. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
7. 15 p.m.
Clause 1 [Determination of allotments to and resource limits for Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out "(in whatever way he thinks appropriate)"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not suppose that I am alone in finding Clause 1 of the Bill quite a complicated piece of drafting. At the best of times NHS finance is an extremely difficult and specialist science and I do not pretend to be an expert in it. However, I feel that, as far as possible, what happens to taxpayers' money and who receives it should be clear and transparent.
The element lacking in Clause 1 is any acknowledgement of the importance of the transparency principle and the purpose of Amendments Nos. 5,7, 9, 10 and 13 is to try to rectify that omission.
The Minister will know that, for many years, allocations to health authorities have been based broadly on resource allocation principles. At the moment we have the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation which advises Ministers on these issues. But inevitably, as each new version or refinement of these principles is adopted, some authorities find that they are above the target or below
1048
the target. The annual allocation process therefore has to try to make adjustments to shrink the gaps in both directions.
During the 1990s, under the last government, considerable progress was made in doing just that. In 1992 the gap—that is to say, the gap measured as the distance between the authority with the highest percentage above target and the authority with the lowest percentage below target—was around 34 per cent. By 1998–99 it had fallen to around 14 per cent. However, since then the trend has been reversed. I have not been able to lay my hands on precise figures, but my understanding is that very little of the total allocations during the past two or three years have been used to redistribute money between over and under- target authorities. That process of strategic shift in resources ought to be clearly in the public domain. At the moment it is not.
Ideally, the Government should publish the allocation target and the distance from target of each body. We should also ideally be able to see what amounts have been top-sliced from the budgets, such as the amounts in the NHS performance fund. However, it would be a welcome first step if a statement was laid before Parliament which set out the principles on which allocations are made and the amounts of money being parcelled out. That is what Amendment No. 9 seeks to do.
The Government indicated that the purpose of Clause 1 is to get fair shares for GP services. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with that aim. However, it is patently obvious that another valuable by-product of that clause—that is, valuable to the Department of Health and the Treasury—is that it enables Ministers to obtain control of non cash-limited GP spending.
For example, if a southern health authority has had historically high levels of GP services and an average level of secondary care services, then its overall level of spending will have been above average. Clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to cut allocations to the authority in order to level down the effect of apparently high GP spending. But it is worth saying that high spending is not in itself a good indicator of over-provision. Some costs associated with Part II services will inevitably be higher in areas where property prices and wages are higher than they are in other areas.
I understand about the new unified formula referred to in the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 23 of the notes says that this formula should not lead to the cash limiting of Part II expenditure. That is an example of economy with the truth. It is clear that, as a result of the unified formula, some cash limits will bite on the allocations that are made by health authorities to PCTs; in other words, cash limiting by the back door.
The notes say that those authorities that are over target under the new rules will receive lower funding growth than those under target. Can the Minister confirm that there will at least be no reduction in allocation, certainly in cash terms, as a result of the new powers?
Let me revert briefly to where I started; that is, to the issue of transparency. The powers conferred by Clause 1 are incredibly widely drawn. It says that the Secretary of State may take into account a health authority's Part II expenditure,
"in whatever way he thinks appropriate".
That is a recipe for completely subjective decision making. If one takes the wording literally, the Secretary of State could abandon all pretence of following a laid-down resource allocation formula and do exactly as he likes without disclosing why he is doing it. To take that to an extreme, although the idea is admittedly fanciful, it would not do for the powers to be used to redistribute money into, for example, favoured marginal constituencies. What statutory safeguards are there to prevent that happening? What is to stop the Secretary of State taking into account one authority's general Part II expenditure in a certain way and yet take into account another authority's Part II expenditure in a completely different way or, indeed, not at all?
It does not seem to me to be right to depart from the principle which says that money should be allocated around the health service only by means of objective and fairly applied formulae. However, to the extent that formulae sometimes need to be refined and tweaked, I believe that it is of fundamental importance that there should be maximum transparency in the way that that is done. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. This is the first time I have taken part in debate on the Bill because I was not able to attend Second Reading. I have spoken to Members of your Lordships' House who have agreed that I should take part in debate in Committee.
As I have the generosity of the House and am able to do that, I start by declaring interests. I am a non-executive director of Huntsworth plc; executive director of MJM Healthcare Solutions and a council member of the ICRF. I chair St George's Medical School council. I am a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, a senior associate of the King's Fund, and it is time I got a life!
I support the amendment because I like the way that the clause is related to primary care. I have spent a lifetime working in primary care and feel strongly about it. The device which is being promoted here is to try to address the long-standing problem which was identified decades ago by Dr Tudor Hart and became known as "the inverse care law". However, like my noble friend, I have problems with the clause and much of the Bill because of its lack of transparency.
As my noble friend said, increasingly we have seen resource allocation shrouded in mystery. It is almost impossible now to see who is getting what because of the top-sliced money. Recently we have seen the introduction of the performance fund. That is a misnomer. It is not so much a fund as a convenient way of withholding money from general allocation. We shall see the fund grow and grow.
1050
It is impossible now to tell whether health authorities are receiving their fair shares or getting allocations of anorexic proportions. Added to that, the recent figures are not comprehensively on the public record. Even without the performance fund, if one takes into account health action zones, grants for inequalities, the New Opportunities Fund, and so on, it is hard to tell.
I shall be deeply boring and give a list of some of the top-sliced money: £7 billion for new capital investment; £31 million to improve hospital cleaning; £10 million for improvements to hospital food; £9 million for practical improvements in the working environment—I am not sure what that means—£250 million for information technology; £570 million for cancer; £230 million a year for chronic heart disease; £120 million of capital funding for the Treasury capital modernisation fund; £300 million in equipment for cancer, renal and heart disease; £300 million for the mental health national service framework; £140 million for professional staff to keep their skills up to date; £8 million for GPs and their staff (occupational health); £30 million for childcare arrangements; £50 million for special services to reward joint working with social services and £10 million for NHS-wide patient advocate and liaison service (PALS), a friend of ours, to which we shall come later.
I could go on. That is not even a comprehensive list. That illustrates how much money is being siphoned off and how little we are able to track it. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment in terms of transparency. He is right that ideally one would want to see the distance from target for each body made explicit. However, I recognise that that will be difficult. We should like to see the targets specified in legislation. Again, that is difficult. However, surely the least the Minister should give us tonight is transparency and agree to the amendments tabled by my noble friend.
I have given notice to the Minister that I should like to have a whole range of information about the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. I worked on this late at night. Looking at it in the morning, perhaps it is not so appropriate.
I should like to know who these people are; how they are appointed; the committee's terms of reference; whether it takes evidence; whether it meets in public; and how its decisions are disseminated. As regards this clause, will the committee take into account other community services such as nurse-led primary care centres? Does that come into the equation? Will it take a strategic view of the workforce, which in this case is GPs, or will it consider only financial issues?
I welcome any attempts to attract bright, young, newly-qualified doctors into general practice. I understand that, if enacted, the clause will strengthen primary care. However, can the Minister tell us whether it provides incentives for GPs to work in the wilderness areas? Will the measures in any way attract GPs, and will they address Tudor Hart's inverse care law? Will they bring in flexibility in terms of

1051
employment? I imagine that with the GP contracts that is not possible. However, will the measures enhance GPs' pay if they are part of a salaried service?
I do not believe that GPs take on general practice to seek money. I know that the Secretary of State has recently introduced incentives in terms of their pay. I believe that GPs are altruistic. They want to treat, heal and care for the sick. The ethic of most GPs is that they love their neighbour and feel that each should be done by according to his needs. That is a Christian ethic and one which many GPs carry out to the full.
However the way in which we employ such people is strange. We give them little opportunity to change their jobs. We expect a GP to arrive in a practice at the age of 28 and to spend the rest of his or her working life in that community. By the time GPs are 40, they are probably fed up. Their hopes have either been fulfilled or they recognise that such hopes are unrealistic. Are there incentives in the system being introduced to ensure that GPs are attracted to such areas, or will the system be mechanical?
The other question I want to ask the Minister reflects the comments of my noble friend. Let us suppose that a vacancy occurs in a health authority area and the health authority decide not to fill it but to use the savings to address, say, a recurring deficit in acute services. Are there safeguards in the clause to ensure that that will not happen? I want to ensure that there is such a safeguard and that transparency exists. I strongly support my noble friend.
Baroness Northover: I want to address the specific issue in Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 10 and 13 to a clause which allows the Secretary of State and, in one case, health authorities to act,
"in whatever way he thinks appropriate"
across a wide range of areas concerned with how the resources in the NHS are to be allocated.
There are many areas in the Bill where the Secretary of State apparently seeks wide powers. I gather from debates in the other place that the Government intend to introduce a formula for the use of such powers, when they have worked it out.
Like other provisions in the Bill, that formula has yet to be spelt out and we may come back to this in the next group of amendments. We should not leave this clause as it is, open to abuse. I am sure that this is very far from the Minister's mind. In the interests of transparency and accountability, Amendment No. 9 is the right approach.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad about the general welcome given to the intent behind this clause in relation to ensuring that there is a better distribution of GPs in the first instance throughout the country. I particularly welcome the penetrating questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, which I shall do my best to answer. She certainly showed that there is life after being a health Minister!
1052
Essentially, what we are attempting to do here is to use a formula for determining fair shares for health authority and primary care trust allocations, which brings both parts of the funding regime together. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested, this has been a big problem in the past. Even where you had the previous resource allocation funding assistance, there was a limit to what could be done, because it bore no reference to what could be spent under Part II.
Essentially, the clause allows the Secretary of State to take account of the distribution of spending on the non-cash delimited primary care services when he makes cash-limited allocations to health authorities, and then allows health authorities to take account of the distribution of spending on non-cash-limited primary care services when they make cash-limited allocations to a primary care trust.
The intention in the first instance is to develop a single-funding formula which will extend the existing unified budget formula which covers the old hospital health services budget, prescribing and general medical service infrastructure costs, to cover all GMS costs. The clause allows us to bring other Part II services, such as dentists and pharmacists, within the ambit of the formula in future.
We are starting with GMS because the relationship between population needs and the number of doctors is best understood in this area. However, as the dental strategy makes clear, we anticipate that health authorities will play a much more pro-active role in dentistry and indeed actually put their hands into their own pockets to ensure that it is given a boost. Initially we are focusing on personal dental service schemes to achieve this, but as preventative service becomes better understood on a population level we would, using this clause, have the opportunity to bring these services too into the fair shares allocation system, delivered through the single-funding formula.
Various speakers referred to the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, ACRA, regarding the development of the non-GMS non-cash-limited element of the new formula. It will be building on earlier work undertaken with the Medical Practices Committee, which developed a formula setting fair shares of unrestricted GP principals at health authority level. Essentially, we have asked ACRA to advise whether, and how, the formula needs modifying to operate in cash terms for the whole GMS non-cash-limited budget at both health authority and primary care trust levels.
Turning to the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Earl referred to the 1997–98 range of distance from target, which was around 15 per cent. For 2001–02, the figure is 18.6 per cent but there is an explanation. While the range has increased as a result of one or two outlyers, I can confirm that more health authorities are nearer to their target. For instance, in 1997–98 93 per cent of health authorities were within plus or minus 5 per cent of their target, but by 2001–02 96 per cent will have reached that figure, being plus or minus 5 per cent. I would also say that the 2001–02

1053
figures of the unified allocations covering HCHS prescribing and GMS cash limited are not comparable with those for 1997–98, which cover HCHS only.
It is quite difficult, but my own conclusion is that progress is being made to try to reduce the gap between the health authorities in relation to the target. The intent, when we implement the new system, is that we will arrive at a single funding formula that will set a target, or fair share, for each health authority and primary care trust, covering GMS non-cash-limited expenditure as well as a unified allocation. I want to stress that when we allocate the extra resources for unified allocations in future our change-of-pace policy will apply to these new targets. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that this works on extra resources being made available.
Essentially, those who are spending less than their fair share on GMS non-cash-limited services can be given a larger increase for their other services, and if they are spending more than their fair share they may get a smaller increase. The intent is to do that by a process of levelling up so that no area will have its existing level of resources reduced.
Of course, this clause does not stand on its own. It is clearly linked with the abolition of the Medical Practices Committee, as set out in Clause 21. We shall debate that later, but the important point is that in a sense we have anticipated the debate we had on Second Reading, in that it is really pushing responsibility down to the health authority level to try to tackle some of the very difficult problems in relation to GP distribution.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, of course we want health authorities, and particularly primary care trusts, to use new flexibility to attract doctors to areas or localities where primary care services are poorly developed or over-stretched. We are looking particularly at GMS local development schemes or NHS walk-in centres. Those services are funded from cash-limited money and the new formula will mean that under-doctored areas will receive a proportionately greater share of increase in the unified budget, which they can use to fund these initiatives. Also, I am sure many of your Lordships will be pleased to recognise that some of them, like NHS walk-in centres, offer the possibility of using the skills of nurses to develop services to complement those of traditional general practice.
I would also say that in relation to issues such as the procedures that health authorities will need to go through they will have to work through a process of consultation at local level, particularly where they need to declare a GP vacancy, thereby taking over the role of the Medical Practices Committee. The essential point of all this is that we are giving much more leverage and responsibility to health authorities at local level.
Turning specifically to the amendments, in answer to the transparency point, only the provisions for funding health authorities under Section 97 of the 1977 Act, the formula process or mechanism by which the Secretary of State determines the allocation of each
1054
health authority, is left to his discretion. It has always been left to the Secretary of State to decide what each health authority should receive and how that is determined, subject to the usual accountability to Parliament. The funding process is monitored by the National Audit Office, and powers must be exercised in accordance with the principles of administrative law. It cannot be exercised in a way in which no reasonable Secretary of State would exercise the power. That allows for the allocation process to evolve over time in line with policy changes. We have simply adopted the same approach in the clause.
The alternative to a general power, which is in there to put beyond any doubt that the Secretary of State has the responsibility to decide these matters, would in fact take a very much narrower power to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme for taking into account an authority's non-cash-limited expenditure when determining its cash limited allocation. I believe that such an approach might limit the ability to modify our approach over time; for example, as new information or research becomes available. The whole history of resource allocation formulae in the health service over what must now be 20 years suggests that new information becomes available and one needs a flexible approach to deal with it.
The words which Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 10 and 13 seek to remove simply make it clear that it is the Secretary of State who exercises this power and that he has a wide discretion to determine precisely how the health authority's non-cash-limited expenditure is to be taken into account.
I turn to Amendment No. 9. That takes us to the transparency issue in the allocations process. I accept the principle behind the amendment. However, I believe that the current allocations process is already transparent.
We already publish details of the current allocation formula. Every year we publish details of each health authority's target, the underlying calculations, and its distance from target and allocation. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to do this for the new arrangements proposed in the clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has been assiduous in charting all the new initiatives that we have centrally funded and one way or another handed out to the NHS. All those initiatives have been publicly announced. The tables for central budgets are included in the allocation publication. Although the list of announcements was impressive—it was certainly an impressive sum—it was nevertheless relatively small compared to the total allocation.
The effect of the amendment would be to require us to publish details of the basis of the calculation of any variation in initial allocations. At the start of each year we divide the money available for the NHS between initial allocations to health authorities and budgets held centrally. As the noble Baroness has suggested, some of these central budgets are then allocated to health authorities for a number of different programmes. It would be bureaucratic to have to publish the details of these calculations. We shall

1055
publish the Part I and Part II allocations and the targets. The pace of change policy will be in the public domain, as will ACRA's work on the formula.
We are committed to transparency. I believe that the arrangements I have set out show that that is so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister sits down, I presume a doctor might want to understand the clause. I am not as clever as a doctor. I have tried to understand it but I cannot. I was refreshed by the clear explanation of the amendments given by my noble friend Lord Howe. I could follow that. I know that the Minister is deep in the system and that he is in a government who are extremely good at inventing complicated systems. The trouble is that doctors will find either that they will have to move or be out of a job because of the amount of money that the Secretary of State allocates to their health authority. They will not know why that is.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked what was being done to motivate doctors, to make them happier in their work. I do not think that finding out that these allocations have happened, as it were, completely over their heads by means of a clause which they cannot possibly understand will help most state doctors. As a simple soul who sometimes needs a doctor, I am extremely interested that there should be enough doctors in the area where I live. At the end of the day, that is what the allocation of doctors is about. Perhaps the Minister should consider whether something can be done to the clause to clarify, particularly for doctors and other people in the health service, how many doctors there are. It is a simple request, but one worth thinking about.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I accept that, when the new arrangements are put into practice, we shall have to explain them to the health service, and particularly to general practitioners. This is a sensible way to go forward. Essentially it is combining two separate funding mechanisms around one formula to enable us to have a much fairer system of financial allocation in the future.
We will continue to protect the non-cash-limited Part II budget for the general medical service. We will use the formulae to enable a shift of resources from the growth money. That will give more resources to those authorities which, under the formulae, are more distant from target. They will be able to use that to enhance primary care services. The existing system in relation to the distribution of GPs, despite the valiant efforts of the Medical Practices Committee, has not been very effective. By putting responsibility at the health authority level, we shall have a better chance of dealing with the matter.
I agree with the noble Baroness that one should provide the right incentives to GPs so that they will feel that they are being adequately supported.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister for his full and considered response to the points made by
1056
noble Lords who spoke to the amendments. I am grateful to him for clarifying the situation with regard to the progress being made in reducing the gaps that local authorities experience against their funding targets.
I also thank him for explaining that, despite appearances, these provisions do not enable the Secretary of State to make judgments that might be considered purely subjective in exercising his discretion, and that there is a test of reasonableness which goes with that matter. The single funding formula sounds as if it will make life delightfully simpler and clearer. I may be an old cynic, but somehow I doubt it. Nothing the Minister said has dispelled my view that this amounts to cash limiting by the back door, at least that is one of the by-products of it.
The Minister did not specifically say that there would be no reductions in allocations—at least in cash terms—to any health authorities. I hope that that is the case. In theory, reading this provision (if I do so correctly), that could happen.
I was grateful for what the Minister said on the issue of transparency. I am sure that he shares the views that I expressed. But this is, by any standards, an arcane and abstruse area, certainly for the general public, also even for Parliament. I am sorry that the department cannot see a way around this matter. It should be possible to present something to Parliament in language that is clear and that we all understand. I know that the figures are available if one digs hard enough, and of course Written Questions can be tabled and so on. Nevertheless, many of us are operating in the dark and that is not as it should be.
I am still concerned about differential costs in different areas of the country and how those are to be allowed for in the allocations. How can the Secretary of State tell what is the real level of services provided for patients in a given area? What indicators and mechanisms are in place to enable him to do that? The concept of "fair shares" sounds delightfully easy, but clearly it is not. How is the Secretary of State to arrive at a judgment on fair shares when costs around the country differ as they do? For example, is there a linear correlation between the level of general Part II expenditure and, say, the number of GPs in practice? I would be interested to know the answer.
These are matters to which doubtless we shall be able to return during later stages in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the light that he has been able to shed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Student Poverty
7.50 p m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to alleviate student poverty, and to address the anomalies arising between support systems in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I left university, far more years ago than I care to reveal, the only things hanging around my neck were a string of beads and a guitar. Today, students graduating from university have an enormous burden of debt hanging around their necks. Some calculate an average total of £12,000 worth of debt for each graduate. For most graduates, this is a major concern. It affects their ability to establish themselves in the world of work and home ownership, and it deters their younger brothers and sisters from joining them in the ranks of those who benefit from higher education.
Moreover, for those that do take up university places, financial problems often cause them to leave before the end of their course and, in many cases, affect the quality of their studies. What a terrible waste. It is clear that the Government's failure adequately to address the issue of student funding affects both the quality of and the access to higher education—and what is most ironic, access by the groups the Government most want to encourage: the lower demographic groups, older students and certain racial groups. For example, in a survey of 2,000 working class pupils in Hull schools, more than half said that they were less likely to apply to university because of the introduction of fees and the replacement of student grants with loans.
Student debt is a ticking time bomb whose effects on individuals and on the economy have so far been only hinted at. The introduction of tuition fees, the abolition of the right to claim housing and other benefits, along with the removal of maintenance grants—all within a couple of years of each other—is a triple whammy. Already there is evidence of the damage that this has caused. Comparisons between applications in England and Scotland where, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, the funding system is now different, show what can happen when one government take a short-sighted view of student support and the other take a more visionary attitude.
Where is the evidence for all this damage? First, are students hard up? The answer is "yes", according to the NUS Student Hardship Survey conducted in December 1999. The survey showed a wide gap between the amount of money that students need to live on and the total package available through loans and, at that time, grants in some cases. It was demonstrated that students needed £5,641 to live on, but only £3,545 was available—a gap of £2,096. One-quarter of all students said that they were always short of cash and one-fifth of undergraduates said that they missed meals because of cash shortages. After accommodation costs had been taken care of, students were left with £23.10 per week to pay for bills, food,
1058
clothes, books, travel and so forth. In the same year, the jobseeker's allowance paid £39.85 per week, plus housing benefit where appropriate. It is not surprising, therefore, that around half of those surveyed said that money difficulties hampered their studies.
Many students take up employment in order to make up the shortage. This is not necessarily a bad thing in principle, as long as it does not interfere with their studies and as long as they are employed at fair wages and under decent conditions. It seems, however, that the studies of many students are affected by their jobs. The survey showed that nine out of 10 students work at some time during the year, with four out of 10 working during term time. The average time worked per week is 13 hours in term time, rising to 26 during vacations. Around half of the students who worked felt that it was detrimental to their studies. Three out of 10 said that they had missed lectures, while two out of 10 said that they had failed to submit work because of their paid jobs. These findings illustrate a picture of growing hardship where employment has become a substitute for proper student maintenance funding and where hardship is detracting from effective study.
The evidence does not come only from the NUS. The Student Income and Expenditure Survey 2000, known as the Callender report, although completed before the withdrawal of grants, points to a worrying degree of student debt. Almost nine out of 10 students in the survey reported financial difficulties. The costs of housing, travel and course expenses are rising and, when combined with the burden of paying tuition fees, it was found that student debt had trebled in the three years between 1995–96 and 1998–99. Goodness knows what it is now.
The Government may say that it is wrong to include tuition fees when calculating the cost of taking a degree because it is the parents who are supposed to pay them. However, it is often the student him or herself who bears the cost of tuition fees. The Callender report showed that 30 per cent of students paid the majority of it themselves.
It might be expected that some of those beset by financial problems might give up and go and get a job instead of ploughing on towards graduation. I think that all of us know someone who has done that. The survey backs up that theory. It found that over half of all students have thought about giving up their course at some time, with finance being the strongest factor for around one-third of students.
Clearly, students are reluctant to borrow as much as they need to live and even the maximum amount they are able to borrow from the Student Loans Company is not enough. Many students, in particular from poorer families, are reluctant to take on a large burden of debt. The impact of this is worst on those very same under-represented groups whom the Government are seeking to encourage. NUS research shows that between 1997 and 1999, male applicants from social groups 4 and 5 had fallen by 7.8 per cent; applications from black Afro-Caribbean males had fallen by 10 per cent; and from women over 25, they had fallen by 14.5 per cent. Applications from mature students

1059
taking degree courses have also fallen sharply since 1997, and that is almost certainly linked to the funding arrangements. The phasing out of grants that is now under way will sharply escalate the financial burden on the poorest students and Gordon Brown's small pot of money for non-repayable bursaries will not solve the problem.
So how are things different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Scotland is the furthest ahead. The Labour and Liberal Democrat administration in Scotland had the benefit of the Cubie report into student funding and has implemented the vast majority of its recommendations. The principle is that students make a contribution to the cost of their education, but they do not do it up front, where it would prove to have the most deterrent effect. They do it after they graduate by paying £2,000 into a graduate endowment fund. They can pay this either as a lump sum or borrow from the Student Loans Company, just as they do with their student maintenance loan. This means that the universities have the benefit of getting the money much sooner and the graduate pays only when he or she is earning. Non-repayable student bursaries similar to the old grants have also been introduced in a student funding package containing over £50 million of new money. The sharpest funding differences in the UK are shown in the unit of funding resource of each full-time student. Next year the figures will be £5,360 for England and £6,744 for Scotland—more than a quarter higher. Next year, Scotland will be spending around 2 per cent above inflation on each student, with England spending only 0.4 per cent above inflation.
The effect of this has been dramatic. Figures released by UCAS in January indicated that the increase in university applications in Scotland, at 4.5 per cent, was three times higher than the increase across the UK. There has been a 7.8 per cent increase over the previous year in the number of Scottish students attending Scottish universities. The increase clearly shows that the abolition of tuition fees and the introduction of student bursaries have already made a major impact.
In Wales, where the joint Labour/Liberal Democrat administration in the Welsh Assembly has declared its intent to have its own Cubie-style report, there has been an increase of 6.5 per cent in the numbers of Welsh students going to institutions in Wales. In Northern Ireland, where the devolved Assembly supports a similar package, although the Minister does not intend to implement all of it, there was an increase of 8.6 per cent.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to consider the proposals for tackling this issue that we have been hearing from Mr Hague's Conservative Party in these recent pre-election weeks. The Conservatives have promised to privatise the universities and privatise and commercialise student loans, thereby costing graduates a great deal more even than they pay now. In fact, their proposal would increase the total liability of the student body by a monumental 78 per cent. They propose to raise £700
1060
million a year by increasing the interest paid on student loans to the commercial rate. A student who takes out three loans would therefore pay an additional £2,815 under the Tory proposals than he or she does at present.
The Tories try to sell this idea to students by proposing to increase the threshold below which repayments need not be made to a salary of £20,000 a year. But what they do not tell you is that, while you are deferring paying off your loan, the interest is accruing at commercial rates and vastly inflating the amount that you will have to pay off in the end. What a con! I think that those who believe themselves capable of gaining a degree are by definition not stupid and they and their parents will see through this cynical ploy and will not vote for it.
What poor students need is not a Tory privatised loans system but the abolition of the tuition fees introduced by the Labour Government and the restoration of the maintenance grant, as the Liberal Democrats have done in Scotland and propose to do in Wales.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing the debate. It is one in which probably a significant number of noble Lords either had, or now have, a personal interest. My contribution will be brief.
First, I want to say that I have no quarrel with the Government's drive to increase access to higher education. I do not suppose that many Members of this House would quarrel with that. I also have no quarrel in principle with the possibility that those who can afford to might make a contribution to the cost of higher education. But the issue is: "those who can afford to pay".
I want to focus in particular on the difference between some groups of students and other groups. I shall refer briefly to the particular problems faced by students who undertake vocational training. My particular interest is in those undertaking training in the performing arts, because that is the world to which I belong; but my remarks may apply equally to others—for instance, architects or doctors, who have a particularly long training to undertake.
The point about vocational training, in whatever field, is that it is frequently long, it is often demanding, and it is usually heavily programmed. By way of example, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the experience of my son, who, I am afraid, trained as an actor. Before he did so, he went to university. While he was there the average number of hours that were programmed for him per week was around six. As a trainee actor, his programme was for up 12 hours a day, and there were often six days in a working week.
It is clear that, if students work programmed hours of that order, it is unlikely that they will be able to undertake paid work. If they were to do so, the likelihood is that it would be in hours that should

1061
properly be spent in sleep, or at the very least in study. Therefore, students who undertake vocational training often have to take up loans simply because they have no other way to acquire the money they need to support themselves. Alternatively, their parents have to help out to a greater extent than perhaps is the case with other students.
Those who are dependent on student loans for long training are therfore often at a significantly greater disadvantage than those who simply undertake an ordinary three-year undergraduate course. My daughter is currently training at music college on a four-year undergraduate programme and will almost certainly have to undertake at least one and possibly two years of postgraduate training in order to complete the work that she needs to do in order to take up her profession. At the end of that time, she and her colleagues will have acquired an even greater burden of debt than those who have taken a three-year undergraduate course of the conventional kind.
That might not be so bad if we were talking about students who were going out into the world and straight into highly paid occupations. In the main, though, students who undertake vocational training of that kind are not doing so. Certainly, those in the performing arts are going out into what is broadly a rather underpaid profession. Therefore, the extent to which they are able to begin paying off the loans that they have undertaken is significantly less than is the case with their more fortunate colleagues who are able to take well-paid jobs in the City—to join a law firm, for instance. They emerge into an uncertain and, as I say, often low-paid, occupation for which they have trained very hard and often for many years.
When my noble friend the Minister replies to the debate, will he comment on what the Government might be able to do in future to provide additional support for students whose commitment to a particular vocation puts them at a financial disadvantage? I suspect that there are many such students. It would be helpful if their plight could be taken into account in considering this issue in future.
8.7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest: first, as the parent of two recent graduates, one of whom is still living at home at the age of 30 while he pays off his loans and, secondly, as a university teacher. It is in the second capacity that I should like to speak.
We in this country, south of the Border, attempt to do in three years what the Americans do in four. They are used to students working their way through college. With a four-year course, that can be done; with a three-year course, it cannot be done without a grave sacrifice of academic standards.
The words "poverty" and "student" have been associated for a long time. But I speak for my party on social security matters and when I use the word "poverty" I endeavour, whether with success or not, to use it with precision. The sort of poverty I have seen among students in the past 10 years is totally unlike anything I had seen in my previous 30 years of academic experience.
1062
There have been two crucial points of calamity. One was the withdrawal of social security benefits in 1990; the other—especially for those in London—was the Housing Act 1988, which required university halls of residence to charge market rents. The effect of that in London is catastrophic. The tuition fees were only the arsenic on the cake. But arsenic, of course, has a cumulative effect as it works through the body.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley quoted a figure of four out of 10 students doing work during term time. That may be the figure that is known to the authorities, but in my experience it is a great deal too low. In fact, I believe that it should be just about doubled. As a college, we try to limit students to 12 hours' work a week, which does harm but does not necessarily do catastrophic harm. We are by no means always able to achieve that aim. Very often the choice is between doing a great deal more and withdrawing from college altogether.
In my experience since I returned from the United States in 1984, the amount of academic work carried out by students has halved. If I do not say that that amounts to a decline in the standard of the degree, it is because there has, at the same time, been a rise in the potential intellectual ability of those whom I teach. I believe that the one thing almost exactly cancels out the other.
To go through the immense cost of sending students to university in order that they should learn more about Burger King than about King John, strikes me as a rather wasteful process. It is also discriminatory by parental income. I know some pupils whose parents buy them houses for the period while they are undergraduates. They sell them after three years and make an immense profit: nice work if you can get it! However, it is a very different picture for other students.
I mentioned the fact that my son is living at home while paying off his loans. Other students cannot do so. There is also a severe distorting effect on the jobs that graduates take after they have completed their degrees. When we debated the student loans Bill in 1990, I can remember saying that the legislation would lead to the necessity of offering to repay loans in order to entice people into the teaching profession. I am sorry that that was a true prophecy.
There are also certain categories of people who suffer quite exceptional hardship. In my experience, the worst examples are the students who are estranged from their parents. The money that they receive simply does not cover the vacations; and they have nowhere to go where they can get a roof over their heads during that time. That is a torture of Tantalus. Two of my students are in that position at present. I had lunch with one of them earlier today. He has advised me very strongly never again to admit to the college anyone in his position. I cannot tell him that he is exaggerating; I wish I could.
The Minister will no doubt mention access funds. The college access fund has been extremely generous in the case that I just mentioned. However, there are many calls upon it. Each time it has brought that

1063
student just to the point where, when he jumped, he hit the top of the fence. Then we had to start all over again. When Ministers invoke access funds, I am reminded of when I tried to feed a hippopotamus at the Philadelphia zoo when I was five. I threw a peanut which, to my intense pride, landed on the middle of his tongue. But the hippopotamus simply kept his mouth open waiting to be fed. The access funds are nowhere near meeting the need.
I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned the case of those seeking vocational education. I have a student at the moment in that position who decided that he would like to go to the Bar. He would have been quite brilliant. However, both his parents were made redundant within a few weeks of his taking that decision. It is the Bar's loss; and it is justice's loss.
We are told about access, but if the Government complain of lack of access for applicants from underprivileged backgrounds, they are showing what John Stuart Mill described as,
"the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork".
8.14 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this debate. It is subject that causes a very great deal of anxiety to many people—above all, and in particular, to impoverished students, but also to their parents, even willing parents, who find themselves trying to meet burdensome or even impossible financial demands to help their student children. That is a factor that can often lead to tension and breakdown within families. The staff of universities and colleges know only too well about the privation suffered by their students, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so eloquently outlined. There are also the hard choices that many students face between concentrating on academic work and taking the available jobs in order to make ends meet.
The Church of England has chaplaincies in virtually every university and college. What I say derives mainly from information provided by those chaplains and known only too well to the staff of our Board of Education at Church House. Scottish students are indeed fortunate. I hope that their English counterparts may soon enjoy similar levels of financial support.
Perhaps I may briefly make some specific points. First, the experience of chaplains in higher education is that disparities in income between students are greater now than they have ever been in the past 50 years. Some are generously, lavishly supported by their parents and lead very comfortable lives. But others struggle desperately, even after taking the maximum available loan, which is swallowed up in accommodation and travel costs thus leaving pitifully little for food; and nothing at all for the legitimate, occasional pleasures of student life, let alone necessary books and the kind of cultural activities in which students should be able to take part.
1064
Secondly, I have this figure of 40 per cent in respect of students, although I accept that it may be more, undertaking 12 hours' work a week on average. But the kind of work that they do is either in bars or nightclubs, which obliges them to work far into the night and leaves them exhausted the next morning, or it is day-time work that prevents them attending lectures, seminars, and so on.
Thirdly, a large percentage of those who drop out of courses or fail exams come from among those who take such jobs. The real high-flyers can cope with that kind of stressful life, but the less able students find it very tough indeed. As has already been mentioned, this is a time of increasing access to higher education. It is those people who are, shall we say, on the border line of suitability as regards being able to benefit from higher education who become discouraged or defeated by such financial burdens and anxieties.
Fourthly, the expansion of student numbers has meant that fewer and fewer students can enjoy their first year at university or college on the campus. There is just not enough accommodation for the increasing numbers. We are talking about a supportive residential environment where they could find advice and help from fellow students. So many first-year students are now living out in lonely, isolated places with high travel costs. That isolation means more risk of emotional and academic breakdown.
Fifthly, there are some higher education institutions in which students are receiving food parcels through the agency of chaplains, local Church congregations, or branches of the Mother's Union. Such is the measure of destitution faced by the most hard-pressed students. Should we be content with, let alone proud of, a system that requires that kind of emergency charitable support? It might be necessary, and perhaps understandable, in an impoverished developing country. But food parcels for students in the United Kingdom in the 21st century? It is a disgrace.
Finally, one particular point about which I have some knowledge concerns candidates for ordination, of whom, I am glad to say, there are increasing numbers. They face some of the same problems encountered by students of the performing arts. There are increasing numbers, not least of academically distinguished young people, who will become the clergy and, in particular, the theological educators of the future. We need them badly. But the financial path to ordination is a very hard one. The Church will provide the full cost of training and adequate grants for accommodation during ordination training. However, the bright students will have undergone three years of undergraduate study and probably three years of postgraduate study. During that time they will have built up an intolerable burden of debt. Students are entering theological college burdened with this debt and are quite unable to face the prospect of repaying it out of the modest stipend which is all that they are likely to receive during their ministerial life.
Student poverty is a deeply serious problem. I beg the Government to find a sensible and generous solution to it. Students do not have the appetites of hippopotami; but they do need help.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, new Labour hit students in this country with a tripple whammy: the imposition of tuition fees; the abolition of maintenance grants; and the reduction of the repayment threshold on student loans from £16,000 to £10,000.
I shall begin with tuition fees. There are really two considerations that one must bear in mind. First, what effect do they have upon the level of participation in higher education? Secondly, what effect do they have on the social mix of the student population? My noble friend Lady Walmsley referred to the figures for 2001, which show how much the take-up of higher education places in Scotland has increased as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is up 9 per cent, as compared with 1 per cent in England and 2.6 per cent in Wales.
If one looks at the applications for places in degree courses at higher education institutions in Wales over the past five years, one sees that there has been a dramatic fall due to the introduction of tuition fees. At the University College of Wales Aberystwyth there were 12,966 applications in 1994. In 1997, following the introduction of tuition fees, that figure dropped to 8,264—down 36 per cent. Last year the figure was 8,343. At the University College of Wales Bangor there was a drop of 23 per cent over the same period. At the University of Wales Cardiff there was a drop of 12 per cent and, worst of all, at the University of Wales Swansea—where one of my sons was a student—applications have dropped by 43 per cent as a result of the introduction of tuition fees.
I turn to mature students. Research carried out by the Liberal Democrats shows that in Scotland mature student applications have risen by some 5.5 per cent. In the rest of the United Kingdom they have dropped by 1.7 per cent in the same month in 1999. The rise in Scotland occurred exactly when tuition fees were abolished and maintenance grants or bursaries were reintroduced. Before that time applications from Scottish mature students were down by 14 per cent overall and by 11.3 per cent as a proportion of the population. Tuition fees have denied access to higher education, particularly in Wales.
As for the student mix, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, acknowledged in the fourth report of the House of Commons Education Select Committee that currently around 80 per cent of children of professional and managerial groups enter higher education, compared with only about 17 per cent of the children of lower socio-economic groups. Scotland's Cubie inquiry concluded that,
"the perception of the up-front tuition fee represents an impediment to access … although the majority of students do not pay full tuition fees, their very existence was considered a deterrent".
The Cubie inquiry also pointed out,
"There is ample evidence that young adults from low income backgrounds are under-represented in higher education … Given the debt aversion of the families from which these students come, a support package which is made up exclusively of loans would not meet wider access objectives for participation by this grouping".
1066
In Wales the new partnership between the Liberal Democrats and Labour has tried to do something about the peanut on the hippo's tongue. The Partnership Agreement, Putting Wales First, commits the Welsh Assembly to,
"a further increase in funding to tackle student poverty in Wales. As a first step we will increase the amount of money available for access funds to at least £11.5 million in the coming year".
That increase of 15 per cent is immediately available as a result of the partnership that we entered into. In the next three years that will have a considerable impact on those who can gain access to higher education.
There have been some criticisms of access funds, not just by my noble friend Lord Russell. Access funds are available only once hardship has become evident. They do not pre-empt or prevent hardship. They do not seem to be used to promote access to education but to promote the retention of students who have got into financial difficulties. The NUS Wales stated with some firmness that access funds cannot be relied upon by students in planning their finances as they are not available at the start of courses; there is no way of predicting how much students will get from any fund and resources and procedures vary.
We have tried in Wales to do something about the way in which this Government have squeezed students and have created a degree of student poverty. We can only hope that the Liberal Democrats in England in this Chamber and outside will have a similar impact here.
8.25 p.m.
Broness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Walmsley for introducing a timely debate on an important issue. The issue does not just concern tuition fees. It also concerns, perhaps mainly, the new loan-financed system of maintenance for students.
Under the new system, students outside London can obtain loans of £3,725 a year, or just over £70 a week. Those in London can obtain loans of £4,590 a year, or just over £88 a week. At the meeting of the parliamentary university group on Monday, Chris Llewellyn-Smith, the Provost of University College London protested to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about student poverty. He said that it is a very real issue and that students in London pay £80 a week in rent out of their loans of £88 a week. How can a student survive if nearly all of their income is devoted to rent?
Of course, some students work. Many noble Lords have mentioned that. At present the average student debt is £4,000 but in future that will rise to £12,000 to £16,000 and possibly more if students take further vocational courses. However, there are problems associated with students working, as my noble friend Lord Russell and the right reverend Prelate have mentioned. Some students live in sub-standard accommodation and do not eat properly. I speak from my experience at Sussex University where many students get by on one meal a day. People pay more for

1067
meals at Sussex University than I pay at the House of Commons cafeteria. Student meals are not necessarily a cheap option.
One may ask whether this matters. I have little doubt that the Minister will tell me that traditionally students live on low incomes and waste too much of their income on beer and other pleasures; that they will benefit from their studies and therefore they should pay something towards them and that loans are therefore an appropriate way to do so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, I agree that those who benefit from such studies should pay for that. However, the key issue is that of debt and debt aversion at a time when we are trying to encourage more students from lower income groups to enter higher education. There is much evidence on this matter in the Callender report that was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and in student surveys and in the Cubie report itself which examined in detail student debt and student poverty. Both the Cubie report and the earlier report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, came to the conclusion that maintenance grants were fairer than loans.
I have been struck by two groups who have been hit hard by the introduction of loans and their repayment. One group comprises student nurses about whom the Royal College of Nursing has produced a report. That is an example of vocational education. Nurses are required to spend time on the wards, undertaking shift work at weekends and during the summer vacations. They do not have time to take outside work.
The other group about which I am concerned are mature students. When I went on a course I picked up a useful pamphlet on financial matters for students. The example of a single parent with two children is mentioned who receives—f one includes the tuition fees paid—a total of £7,500 from the state towards her costs. It came through from the discussion we had with a highly competent lady in charge of students and student finance at a university that many lone parents find it difficult to juggle everything—child care and all the rest. They drop out of universities. From the survey on nurses, 67 per cent of the students said they had considered dropping out. Of those who dropped out 76 per cent blamed finance. The difficulty is in juggling everything. Many students said they wanted to go part time. All that a part time student gets is the £500 loan and nothing else. Do they continue to receive access to benefits if they are students? They did not used to. I am not clear whether this has been changed by the Government.
How far is the debt of £12,000 to £16,000 offputting to students? There is a good deal of evidence that students are debt averse. The Liberal Democrats, in looking at this issue, came to the conclusion that the answer was to use the Cubie solution in this country not only to abolish tuition fees but also to re-introduce means tested grants for part of the maintenance grant, topped up by loans, and to ask the student to pay an endowment which would bring it back. Two thousand pounds per student may not sound very much in relation to the total debt. If one considers that there are
1068
now 500,000 full time students, it is rapidly bringing in £1 billion a year. Therefore, it becomes to some extent self-financing.
The problem of student debt is not a trivial issue. It is a very real one. If we want to widen access to our universities it is a problem we have to address properly. The Government's bursary scheme introduced last year is not good enough. It was an ad hoc, knee-jerk reaction to the new post-Cubie arrangements being introduced in Scotland. From these benches we think the answer is clear—it is to return to the means tested maintenance grants for the poorest students. It has been done in Scotland and Wales. We have done it in Northern Ireland. As the Times Educational Supplement said last week, the proposals by the Liberal Democrats to restore means tested grants are the most coherent solution to student poverty and are a pre-requisite for expansion.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for this debate. Much has been said by the Minister this evening about the funding of higher education and, in particular, of students. It is a matter of record that funding for a higher education student per full time equivalent fell between 1989 and 1997. It is true to say that the period coincided with a considerable expansion of the number of students admitted to higher education. That is why the Dearing report was commissioned with Labour Party support to consider funding and expansion.
The Government have lost no opportunity to make this point. They have been in office over the past four years and have presided over a declining unit of funding to date. From a written parlimentary Answer, the planned increase over the next three years is in year 1, 0.7 per cent; in year 2, zero per cent and in year 3, 0.4 per cent. It would be helpful to know from the Minister whether that increase will be more than absorbed by additional students planned for over the next three years and whether funding per student is planned to rise in line with the target of 50 per cent of the young cohort.
Average student debt has risen dramatically since 1997. In 1995–1996 it was £840; in 1999 £2,530; in 1999–2000 it was £3,210. It is estimated by the Department for Education and Employment that the average debt will rise to £13,000 by 2003. Ministers frequently say that graduates can expect to earn on average 20 per cent more than non-graduates. That is no longer true. Certainly, it is not true of those graduates and post-doctorates who remain in academe.
The number of applicants from varied social backgrounds to full-time undergraduate course through UCAS has fallen since 1997. The worrying trend for accepted applicants highlights the greatest decline for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, both those from a skilled manual background and those from an unskilled background. Educational commentators have highlighted the stark choices facing those from poorer backgrounds. They either do

1069
not apply for fear of debt or if they apply their choice of universities and colleges is restricted by fears about the costs of leaving home and commuting. They also feel they must rule out some subjects because they are worried about finding jobs at the end of their courses.
A recent report on student finance reported that three out of five students questioned knew a friend who had been deterred from applying to university because of changes to student funding. One in seven students said they had come near to deciding against university because of their concerns over the debt they would incur. As the debt burden rises I am sure it will impact on drop out rates. Peter Knight, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Central England, told a conference of university heads earlier this year that an increasing number of students were dropping out of their courses because of mounting debt. It is not just the application of tuition fees but, more importantly, the loss of maintenance grants which has exacerbated the problem. The Education Select Committee was also warned of this during a meeting at the beginning of February with the Professor of Social Policy at South Bank University, Claire Callender, who said:
"It is because of the move from grants to loans that students have built up that substantial debt. Thoughts about debt before going to university may deter some people"
I am on record as saying that the real issue for students was the loss of maintenance grants without even a taper. This Government came to office saying that they had no plans to introduce tuition fees and certainly said nothing about the abolition of maintenance grants. Within weeks of coming to office a Bill was introduced to do both. Students were betrayed.
There then came the Scottish anomaly. Devolution to Scotland and to Wales will mean different policies in different parts of the United Kingdom, and I understand that. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union as one country. Therefore, students can be forgiven for believing that they are citizens of the United Kingdom and should expect parity of treatment within the European Union. We know that our English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students can be discriminated against but not southern Ireland, France, Germany, Italy and other EU countries and the Government remain unconcerned about that. That is the politics of the madhouse.
Time does not allow me to respond to the distorted description of the policies of the Conservative Party by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Suffice it to say that the present system of tuition fees and loans which results in students from the poorest families leaving university with the greatest burden of debt is causing much distress. The levels of debt and the pay-back threshold of only £10,000 is certainly acting as a deterrent for many young people. To say otherwise would display an indifference to what I believe is a very real issue.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, for introducing this debate on this important subject and for the
1070
participation of all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very lively debate. It is important that we keep a sense of proportion when discussing the subject of student finances. The recent Callender report on student income and expenditure, to which reference has been made, shows that the majority of students on degree courses are not in serious difficulties. They have systems of support which enable them to sustain themselves although not in a lavish lifestyle. No one ever thought students would be wealthy. For instance 59 per cent of students have a computer and 27 per cent have a car. A certain number of students still follow the old tradition of drinking above average levels of alcohol.
We should not be complacent about students. We know that if our widening participation strategy is to succeed we must attract into higher education more mature students and students from poorer backgrounds. We recognise that financial issues weigh more heavily on them. We need specific measures— I shall describe them briefly—to persuade them to take that step.
I turn to points raised in the debate. Are more students leaving their courses because of the new financial arrangements than in the past? It does not appear to be so. The present drop-out rate of just over 17 per cent has been the same over a decade. Over the past 10 years, the drop-out rate has been between 16 and 18 per cent. I understand that every drop-out is a casualty. Every teacher, like the noble Earl, who loses a student is bound to feel that keenly. Nevertheless, we must not over-dramatise the position.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the Minister considered the figures for intermissions together with the figures for drop-outs?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I quoted the drop-out figures. That was the cardinal figure described earlier. I stand by what I said.
The Government's vision of higher education is clear. We are committed to maintaining a world-class higher education system. We recognise that that takes money. We have to address that with the fairest funding arrangement for universities and students. We are investing £1.7 billion in higher education in the six years to 2003–04, a real-terms increase of 18 per cent. That includes significant new capital resources. There is extra on top for research.
For the first time in 15 years funding for students will rise in 2001–02 and the expansion of places will be fully funded thereafter. This is a considerable investment. It answers the important question raised by the noble Baroness about funding for higher education. It contrasts somewhat sharply with the record of the previous government.
A number of points were raised about student hardship. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will recognise that we addressed specifically the issue of dance and drama students. We knew that prior to our arrival in office in 1997 the country was in crisis in that

1071
area. The noble Baroness will recognise that our award scheme has produced guaranteed funding for up to 820 of our most talented students. We know that the rich seam of talent in our community goes far beyond that figure. The film "Billy Elliot" helped to illustrate that in a graphic way. It is important that we tap into that talent. But that scheme is real evidence that the Government are addressing themselves to the issue raised by my noble friend.
I turn to the differences in student support systems and the Scottish dimension. The Liberal Democrats have been fast learners with regard to the Scottish dimension. Five years ago the Liberal Democrats were emphasising their commitment to the maintenance grant. Three years ago their spokesman in another place commented favourably on the Government's proposals in the Teaching and Higher Education Act and supported our proposals on tuition fees and the loan system. The Liberal Democrat Party is now waxing strong on the advantages of the Scottish system.
We recognise that devolution will give other parts of the United Kingdom the opportunity to make their own decisions on funding. However, we recognise that there is a deficiency with regard to dedicated support for mature and, increasingly, part-time English students. It is important that we improve participation rates. Such resources, dedicated to those areas, would be difficult to raise if we followed the Scottish model. While it uses its resources for one particular area, it is without the resources that we intend to deploy for a specific range of support systems.
Since 1997 the hardship funds have quadrupled to £93 million a year. As the noble Earl indicated, students present needs. Every teacher in higher education is all too aware of the demands on hardship funds. But I maintain the obvious point: the funds represent a significant record of the Government. Those hardship funds are now available to higher education institutions at the beginning of the academic year. Therefore, they are able to plan more effectively to meet specific needs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the increase mentioned by the Minister is genuine and welcome. The point I made was that the need applies to every single student. That was not recognised when the funds were set up.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am limited by time in dealing with these issues. I do not accept that every student attending higher education in England and Wales is suffering hardship. That is not the basis of the Callender report, much quoted today. It is not the basis of any serious analysis of student finance that I recall over the past two decades. Of course, students are poor; and some students suffer hardship and need. That is why we seek to target such students. That is why, for instance, mature student bursaries for childcare have been available this year; and from next September there will be increased help for student parents, in particular with the new childcare grant. Students facing real hardship are more prone to drop out of their courses.
1072
Opportunity bursaries of £2,000 are being introduced for bright students from less-well-off families. By 2002–03, 25,000 students will be able to benefit from those bursaries.
The concept of the Excellence Challenge requires real resources. The Excellence Challenge is providing £190 million over the next three years. This is dedicated to tackling the problem of attracting students from those backgrounds which are underrepresented in higher education to enable schools, further education colleges and higher education institutions to encourage those students to present themselves for their higher education opportunity.
So the Government are active in those pressing areas which have been identified today. I recognise that there will never been enough resources to meet the needs of every student. However, I assure the House that the Government's student support arrangements are working well. Drop-out rates are not rocketing in the way suggested. There will always be worries over finance, but such worries should not be a barrier to higher education. There is no evidence that that is so at present. More students are going into higher education than ever before. The Government are making sure that extra financial help is available for a vulnerable group of students. Students in hardship can obtain help from the hardship funds. We intend our high ambitions to be fair and progressive. I commend them to the House.

Health and Social Care Bill
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
"(3AB) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under subsection (3AA) solely with a view to securing the appropriate number of medical practitioners providing general medical services (under arrangements made under section 10) or providing personal medical services (under section 28C) in the area of each Health Authority, and in so doing the Secretary of State shall have regard to (inter alia)—

(a) the existing and anticipated need for such services in the relevant area,

(b) the existing and anticipated numbers of such medical practitioners in the relevant area,

(c) the cost in the relevant area of providing such services.

(d) the impact on other health services in the relevant area,

(e) the need for equity as between Health Authorities in the amounts allotted under subsection (3) (or varied under subsection (5)).

(3AC) Prior to exercising his powers under subsection (3AA), the Secretary of State shall publish details of the number of medical practitioners he considers appropriate for each Health Authority area for the purposes of subsection (3AB), and other matters taken into account in accordance with subsection (3) or (5). ""
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 225. The amendments deal with how the Secretary of State will use the powers granted to him by Clause 1 to ensure

1073
that there is an adequate distribution of medical practitioners throughout England and Wales. Clause 21 abolishes the Medical Practices Committee, which, since the inception of the NHS, has undertaken the task of facilitating a fair and even spread of GPs throughout England and Wales relative to local populations. In 1946, the need for such workforce management was plain. There were areas of the country where the number of doctors per head of population was dangerously low, while more affluent areas could boast abundant doctor numbers with comparatively modest list sizes. The way in which the MPC has redressed those imbalances and maintained a continuing steady hand on the tiller has been very creditable. By the mid-1980s, the old restrictive classifications of areas as open or closed to doctors wishing to set up in practice were becoming redundant. By 1986, they had disappeared. Since the mid-1980s, the average list size per GP has continued to fall at a time when the number of whole-time equivalent GPs has remained constant. That illustrates the continuing effectiveness of the MPC's approach to its remit.
Against that background, many people are baffled as to why the Government wish to see the back of the MPC. It has had only limited powers to direct doctors to an area. It has no power to force a doctor to move to a particular post or region. However, the absence of regulatory power has not stood in the way of success. The MPC uses some sophisticated analytical models to evaluate GP workload in an area or even in a specific GP practice. The expertise necessary for those evaluations does not grow on trees. A priori, it seems self-evident that such expertise could not be replicated or distributed over 100 health authorities in the absence of a central body.
It may be a turn-up for the books for the Minister to hear me arguing for some centralised co-ordination, but I am fearful that without the MPC we shall be worse off. The ground that has been gained over the past 50 years could well be lost and it would not be easy to recapture it in a hurry. At a time when there are not enough GPs, I doubt that an approach based on simple resource allocation formulae will guarantee that under-doctored areas of the country are able to attract an adequate supply of practitioners.
I would have no problem with the idea of health authorities offering enhanced financial packages to GPs if GPs were in abundant supply. However, that is far from being the reality. Who will sort out the battles that are almost certain to arise between health authorities that are jockeying to compete for the same individuals? Some areas are bound to lose out.
It is ironic that the present Government should be creating such a market mechanism, having condemned and abolished the market mechanisms introduced by the Conservatives. The previous administration did not seriously contemplate the abolition of the MPC—and for sound reasons. That is why I am proposing a new independent medical practices advisory body that would advise the Secretary of State on any action that he needed to take to ensure a fair and adequate
1074
distribution of GPs. That advice would be published to enable groups representing patients to monitor national and regional trends.
If such a body is not set up, what safeguards will there be against a failure of the resource allocation formula? How will the Secretary of State avoid an area with an adequate supply of GPs suddenly finding itself starved of doctors as they are siphoned off elsewhere? I beg to move.
Baroness Northover: We share the Government's aim of an equitable distribution of GPs to ensure that patients have equal access to doctors. However, we are also very concerned about the abolition of the Medical Practices Committee without the continuation of its functions of national oversight, data collection and control. I shall put on record some of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who would have liked to contribute to the debate, but has unfortunately had to go home because of illness. He has passed me a note of what he intended to say.
The noble Lord would have spoken in support of the amendments, which are aimed at averting the danger of a less than even spread of GPs. He points out that if individual health authorities are allowed to fill or create new GP vacancies without national coordination, we are likely to get ourselves into a worse situation than we have been in up to now. He argues that the MPC has not had sufficient incentive at its disposal to attract adequate numbers of GPs to deprived areas. I agree with much of what he has said.
How will the Government's new system work in practice? What powers might the Secretary of State have to ensure an equitable distribution of GPs? In the absence of such safeguards, I commend the amendments.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I rise as the champion of devolving responsibility, in contrast to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is the champion of ever-tighter regulation.
We shall debate the Medical Practices Committee later. Our proposals detract not a jot from the hard work that the MPC has undertaken over the years. I have worked for many years with the current chair of the committee and I have enormous respect for her. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the MPC's role is to determine, on referral from a health authority, whether a vacancy for a GP should be declared. He rightly pointed out that it cannot direct a GP to practise in an under-doctored area, although it can prevent more vacancies being declared in over-doctored areas.
After many years the MPC has had some success, but it has not been as successful as one would want in ensuring a much fairer distribution of GPs throughout the National Health Service. I am convinced that the mechanism that we have adopted will allow local health authorities to take the lead role through the leverage that they will be given. The local medical services and the other techniques that can be used will

1075
allow them to be much more pro-active in developing primary medical care services, underpinned by the change in the funding formula.
I assure noble Lords that health authorities are not going to be left floating on their own to engage in a brutal market force approach to ensuring a better distribution of GPs. In the first place, as part of the process that they have to undertake, they will have to agree with regional offices of the NHS Executive the need for the number of GPs in their area and to agree with the regional office target increases. There will be what are described as "regional envelopes" for the number of GPs, so that we can match—I very much take the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe in this respect—the distribution of numbers of GPs to both the increase in GPs who come through as a result of the NHS Plan and the overall increase in medical training and the need for a better distribution of GPs. That will be linked into national workforce planning arrangements, which I shall shortly describe more generally.
The substantive point that I want to make is that health authorities will be given much greater freedom to be proactive in this area, but that will be within a sensible performance management framework through regional offices, allowing for targets to be agreed between the health authority and the regional office and allowing the Department of Health to have some workforce planning arrangements at national level. I believe that that will give us the best of both worlds: a framework for the NHS and greater freedom for the health authorities.
I oppose the specific amendments that have been tabled because I believe that they would limit the Secretary of State's power. He could only take into account Part II expenditure with a view to ensuring that each health authority has an appropriate number of medical practitioners. These amendments ignore the need to look at the whole primary care workforce when considering GP distribution. I suggest that they also continue to separate GP services from the rest of the NHS although workforce planning is moving in the direction of integration.
The amendments would also require the Secretary of State to say how many GPs he thinks there should be in each health authority. I believe that that amounts to over-centralisation. It seems to me that the determination of the need for GPs should form part of the local strategic planning role of the health authority, which is very much underpinned by the changes in the funding formula.
The other point that I make in relation to the amendments is that a further effect of them would be that the only non-cash-limited expenditure which could be taken into account would be that on general medical services. I said earlier that, although our present focus is on general medical services, we want to ensure that in future we shall be able to cover other contractor professions, including, for example, dentistry.
1076
I turn to Amendments Nos. 12 and 15. I have said that we want to devolve responsibility for GP distribution to health authorities, but not in isolation. We believe that health authorities must consider GP numbers as part of their whole NHS workforce planning strategy. But we do not believe that a framework is needed to oversee national GP distribution, which I suspect would almost recreate the Medical Practices Committee.
We are setting up a new national workforce development board, which will start its work in April. It will oversee the workforce development of all NHS clinical staff, including GPs and their staff at national level. Alongside that, the Medical Education Standards Board will also keep under review the impact of training requirements on the distribution of GP trainees and principals. Through the national workforce development board, we shall establish an integrated structure of national workforce planning.
I turn to Amendment No. 225. I believe that a medical practice advisory body would amount to over-centralisation and would, as I have already said, tend to recreate the Medical Practices Committee in another guise. I believe that the overall framework that we have set—a funding formula with the right financial incentives, a leadership role for health authorities within a performance management framework, and a national workforce mechanism at national level—will give us the right balance between a central framework and local determination.
Earl Howe: We shall see. I hope that the noble Lord is right in his predictions. I am grateful to him for explaining very clearly the full set of mechanisms that will be in place to deliver what I am sure he wants to see; namely, a more equitable distribution of GPs. However, I still have worries that the significant expertise built up in the MPC will be dissipated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to that. I am the first to admit that the expertise of the MPC has been valuable, but it is worth pointing out that all the data on which it relies come from individual health authorities, which have to make cases to the MPC. The health authorities have a great deal of expertise in putting together information and making cases to the MPC, and I am sure that that is a good foundation on which health authorities can take forward this work.
Earl Howe: That is true. Nevertheless, the skill lies in the interpretation of the data. I do not believe that the tools of analysis developed by the MPC over the years are readily available and to hand in most health authorities, as they will need to be to enable the health authorities to approach the kind of fine tuning required. In the mean time, this has been a useful debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clement-Jones: I do not want to extend the debate unduly. We have had a fair canter around the course and the Minister has tried to explain a thicket of very difficult language in the existing Act and in the proposed Clause 1. Certainly, as a lawyer who is used to reading legislation, I find the 1977 Part IV provisions very difficult to understand. I am also ashamed to say that the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 had passed me by. I did not realise what it was all about until very recently, when the provisions of the Explanatory Notes made clear why it was so relevant.
This is not only a debate about transparency or the future of the MPC; it is also about the merits of Clause 1. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said. I believe that she could give tutorials in resource allocation, although she said that they are "shrouded in mystery". They continue to have a shroud around them.
I believe that the essence of the clause is that it is directed at under-doctoring. The way in which it tries to do so is to allow a different method of dealing with total resources by permitting non-cash-limited expenditure to be offset against cash-limited expenditure. However, I am baffled. If we are trying to get more GPs into deprived areas, why are we adopting this extraordinarily complicated method of doing so? Is it not simply a rather sophisticated way of introducing overall cash limiting? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, used the expression "back-door" cash limiting. I wonder what the ultimate agenda is in that sense.
I understand what the Minister said. The clause is designed to achieve a fairer system. But why is the BMA so opposed to the proposal? One would have thought that a new system, both of resource allocation and of assessing the needs of deprived areas, could have been concocted and used in conjunction with the medical profession. Why have we chosen this rather unilateral way of doing it?
The Minister said that it cannot be subjective, but, frankly, the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, which relates to judicial review, is hardly the most fine instrument of control on government policy, as some of the former Ministers in this House will be only too well aware. Therefore, I do not believe that an adequate level of objectivity is in place, and the result could be overall reductions. We heard what the Minister had to say. Reference was made to overall reductions in the budgets in total. If one added together the GMS budgets and unified budgets, that would be the power available.
Therefore, in a sense, does not this proposal represent a move towards overall cash-limited expenditure? Could it not be used for all sorts of other purposes, quite apart from those stated by the Minister? In addition, as a number of Members of the Committee asked, will it involve a transfer of funding?
1078
My final point is that a great deal hangs on the formula in Clause 1. I find it somewhat inexplicable that the MPC could not have been reformed rather than abolished. Perhaps it needs to be less powerful or perhaps it could have been advisory. However, so much now hangs on that formula. I heard what the Minister said about the national workforce planning framework. Nevertheless, without the MPC, that formula will be very important. It is extremely opaque and, if I were a health authority manager, I would find it somewhat baffling. I would need a great deal more explanation than I believe we have heard today.
Earl Howe: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may follow up the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because I identify myself very much with what he said. However, I want to add one or two other comments. I begin by saying that, by any standards—certainly by comparison with existing health legislation—Clause 1 gives the Government powers that are extraordinarily wide. They are wide enough to cash-limit the NHS as a whole, including general Part II expenditure, and to do so by squeezing the remaining expenditure. Essentially that is what we are looking at.
The Government may say that that is not what is intended. However, some people will suspect that that is precisely what is in their mind. If the aim is to enable the Government to increase resources in under-doctored areas, I still do not understand why a power for that purpose, and that purpose only, could not be taken under Clause 1.
In exercising their powers under this clause, the Government must also act fairly and transparently. The Minister's comments in earlier exchanges were most helpful in that regard. I believe that that is a very important principle because the objective of a more equitable spread of doctors can only be achieved indirectly. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Government make apparent precisely how they intend to use their powers for that purpose. If the Minister can shed further light on that, I shall he extremely grateful.
What the Government are doing begs a host of questions, such as the extra costs of providing GPs in terms of premises and the impact on other services of diverting resources to under-doctored areas. Health authorities must be treated fairly vis-à-vis each other, and there may be other relevant matters. The rules of fairness and transparency demand that the Government make clear at the outset what are their aims for GP numbers and what else will be taken into account in allocating funds and resources. Those matters need to be enshrined in the legislation. They are too important to be left to whatever modus operandi the Government choose to introduce because that can be changed at the drop of a hat.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have a small footnote to add. The Minister says that this is a decentralising way in which to do things. I expressed my anxiety at Second Reading about the centralising nature of the Government's approach. They must realise that it may

1079
look as if giving certain powers to local authorities is decentralising, but it does not look like that to GPs, anyone else working in the health service, or patients. The manipulation of jobs, spread of GPs, and so on will seem enormously threatening to individuals.
I do not want to sound too much like a great aunt— I may have already done so this evening—but we must remember that the NHS is made up of individuals, all of whom have to find a certain satisfaction from it, whether that is job or customer satisfaction. The Government's approach is dangerous from the point of view of demotivating and alienating people. Everything must be done to clarify precisely what is happening. The system must be abundantly plain so that everyone knows exactly what the Secretary of State and the authorities are doing. The doctors must have as much say as possible in their fate, otherwise there will be trouble.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall do my best to respond and perhaps try to show how the system will work. I shall be happy to follow up with more detailed information if members of the Committee would like me to write to them. I understand that matters relating to NHS finance are not easily understood, even by those of us who have struggled to understand them for a number of years.
We are making a genuine effort to devolve authority down to the level of the health authority. The record of the Medical Practices Committee, however hard it tries, shows that a central, bureaucratic approach does not work. My experience is that efforts made to determine numbers of doctors have always failed in the past because they have never fully connected with the needs of the health service. Our approach in decentralising decisions down to the health authority level, combined with the work force framework at national level that I have outlined, is the best way to proceed.
Secondly, I accept the challenge in relation to fairness and transparency. That is why we referred the issue of the formula to ACRA. The recommendations that it makes in due course will be made available to Ministers. The formulas that are decided will be in the public domain, especially the targets that are set and the distance from targets for each health authority.
My third substantive point is that these changes are occurring in the context of both more resources and more general practitioners. That is the only way in which changes to the formulas will work effectively. We can look back at RAWP—the Resource Allocation Working Party—son of RAWP and grandson of RAWP and we know that if we try to introduce formula changes at a time when resources are squeezed, it becomes difficult to get any substantial movement. The conditions in which we are introducing the changes are absolutely right.
There will be a single funding formula that will set a target or fair share for each health authority and primary care trust, covering GMS non-cash-limited
1080
expenditure, as well as a unified allocation. When the Government allocate extra resources for unified allocations in the future, our pace of change policy will apply to those new targets.
So those who are spending less than their fair share on GMS non-cash-limited services will be given a larger increase for their other services. If they are spending more than their fair share, they may get a smaller increase. But that will be done—this is important—by a process of levelling up so that no area will have its existing level of resources reduced. I want to stress this: GMS non-cash-limited spend will remain non-cash-limited. GPs will continue to enjoy the right to remuneration that they currently hold.
Perhaps I may give one example. For the purpose of illustration, suppose a health authority is 3 per cent under target on its unified allocation and 10 per cent under its new GMS non-cash-limited target, if we combine those it might show the health authority to be 4 per cent below its combined target. In line with the pace of change policy, it will probably receive higher growth in its unified allocation than it would under the current system. It is then very much a matter for each health authority to decide what strategy to take forward. But in the end that is the best way of dealing with two different problems; first, the distribution of GPs; and, secondly, the way the allocation of funds works at the moment. We could have a situation where Part II funding is out of kilter with the unified funding which is based on a fair shares approach.
Baroness Cumberlege: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask for clarification. I clearly understand the issue where we have a strong economy and we are able to invest more in public services. But there is a feeling, when we look across the Atlantic to what is happening in America, at the stock market and at all the other signs, that we are at the beginning of another recession. If the situation arises when the Government can no longer continue to increase their funding to the National Health Service, what happens to those allocations? Do they stand still? If there is a reduction in funding, do we then take away from some authorities? Where does the squeeze come?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Given the Government's sound handling of the economy, I regard that as an extremely hypothetical question. But if a decision were made, for whatever reason, that resources to the NHS, at some undefined time in the future, were to be reduced from current levels, that would clearly have an impact on the pace of change. As has happened in the past, when less resource money is available we simply slow down the pace with which we move people nearer to target.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. But I do not believe that the situation the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, introduced into the discussion is so hypothetical. The situations when levelling up might not occur would be exactly those that she indicated.

1081
I take some comfort from what the Minister said and the care with which he outlined the meaning and intent behind Clause 1. It may be we will have a truncated process on this Bill. But we shall need all the time we can get in order to understand what is a complicated area. I regret that the drafting of the Bill had to be so complicated. It cannot be beyond the wit of those concerned to have had more simple drafting and, frankly, drafting that did not take the opportunity to draw the net so widely. I know it is always a great temptation, but the Bill draws the net very widely, which raises suspicions about what could occur in the future if the resources were not there. However, I accept the Minister's assurances.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Payments relating to past performance]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 4, after "they- insert "reasonably"
The noble Lord said: Here we move into the thickets of performance management and resources following performance and so forth, which I believe will give us much excited discussion between now and 11 o'clock. The amendments I suggest are not as comprehensive as those which follow in later groupings. However, they are significant. They try to introduce safeguards which, in the circumstances, will be valuable.
In moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 19 is a slightly stray amendment, which may have been introduced in a haphazard fashion. Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 are the nub of the argument. The wording in Clause 2(2) contains the term "satisfied". That seems to be an absolute statement and leaves matters very much in the hands of the Secretary of State.
On my reading, each and every objective would have to be met to receive any additional amounts. Many of us believe that health authorities should have access to additional funding if they reasonably satisfy the objectives; for instance, if they achieve the majority of the objectives. They should not be deprived if they miss achieving one or two of the number of set objectives. There should be a degree of flexibility in the process.
Amendment No. 20 tries to introduce further flexibility. At present, as I read Clause 2, it is all carrot if health authorities have performed well in the past. Rather, there is a lack of incentive for health authorities which are not performing satisfactorily. If a health authority has performed satisfactorily and well against criteria, they can be rewarded. But what about those health authorities to which the Secretary of State wishes to give an incentive to perform better than they have to date? That may be covered elsewhere in the provisions, but it does not seem to me to be included elsewhere on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we have introduced the concept of payments being made to improve unsatisfactory performance looking towards the future. The Minister may say that there are other ways of dealing with that; I hope that he does.
Those two amendments are designed to give extra flexibility to the clause. We have no objection in principle to a performance management system. It
1082
seems to us to be sensible to introduce something along those lines. However, it should be right and should give the rewarders a degree of power to be flexible in the circumstances. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the general principle of a performance fund. This falls neatly into the Government's proposals to develop what we describe as earned autonomy. Essentially it endeavours to reward through greater autonomy those parts of the NHS that are doing well and to intervene less in their activities while having a much more proactive role in relation to intervention than those organisations which are not doing so well. These clauses enable us to go down that route.
As regards 2001–02, the new performance fund will be issued to health authorities on a fair share basis. Health authorities will then be directed to pass the fund on to NHS trusts and primary care trusts. Performance in the next financial year will not determine the amount of money those NHS bodies receive. It will determine how much direct control they have over how it is spent. The powers in the clause will not be used to operate the performance fund next year.
The essential purpose of this clause is to allow at some future stage the Secretary of State to make additional payments to health authorities, based on how well they are performing in a given year, if he should wish to do so. There will be additional flexibility which will allow the Secretary of State to provide an additional performance incentive for the health service.
For that reason, I have concerns about this group of amendments. First of all, the clause envisages incentives for good performance. The Secretary of State will be able to make payments to health authorities that either satisfy objectives notified to them or perform well against criteria notified to them in advance. I do not believe that is the place to deal with poor or average performance. By extending our powers to make payments to authorities that perform well against criteria, I believe that we have already provided much of the flexibility suggested by the concept introduced by Amendment No. 16 of reasonably satisfying objectives. However, we would not accept that any such payments could be made in any circumstances, as suggested by Amendment No. 19.
I understand the concern behind Amendment No. 20 that money should be made available to tackle poor performance. That is why the performance fund that we are starting with and which will operate next year is based on fair shares for all health bodies, with more strings attached to the money for poor performers. I do not believe that it is appropriate to take a power to make additional performance payments on the basis of poor performance. I accept that there is a balance here, but there is also a danger of that being a perverse incentive.

1083
I think there are other ways in which we can make payments to health authorities to improve unsatisfactory performance levels. For instance, one way in which at the moment we deal with funding issues for authorities or trusts which are having problems is to use brokerage, where money is made available but has to be paid back over a certain period. The condition of the brokerage deals is that there is greater intervention and supervision, perhaps by the regional office, as to how that organisation can get itself out of the trouble it has fallen into. Of course it would be open to the Secretary of State to make an adjustment to the allocation process in order to deal with those issues as well.
I believe, overall, that we have set out a reasonable way to go forward. We are starting on the basis of fair shares, but the clause as it stands allows us, if we wish, to move to differential additional performance payments in future. It would always be our intention to notify health authorities in advance of the objectives they need to satisfy and of the criteria against which they need to perform well.
Lord Clement-Jones: May I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate what he said, but still feel that the clause as it stands is still somewhat unbalanced. It seems to be all "sticks" so far as the under-performer is concerned, and there are inadequate "carrots". I suspect it is a somewhat lopsided situation and it may he that the Minister may be able to make a case, himself, for giving cash and resources to under-performers, rather than going through brokerage, and so on. That would of course inevitably add to the costs of the local authority concerned. It needs further consideration. I will read carefully what he has said and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): In calling Amendment No. 17, I must advise Members of the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 18 due to pre-emption.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 4. leave out from first "objectives" to end of line 9 and insert "set by the Authority as objectives to be met in performing their functions and approved by the Secretary of State, or

(b) they met the performance criteria set by the Authority and approved by the Secretary of State as criteria relevant to the satisfactory performance of their functions (judged by the method of measuring their performance against those criteria set by the Authority and approved by the Secretary of State),

and the Secretary of State shall publish details of such objectives, performance criteria and method of measuring performance within 28 days of approving the same."

The noble Earl said: I would like, if I may, when we come to Clause stand part, to talk a little bit about the so-called "traffic light" scheme, so I do not intend to dwell on that now. Whatever one thinks of the "traffic
1084
light" scheme as currently proposed by Ministers, I hope it is common to all of us to want to see it working fairly in practice. One of the ways of ensuring that fairness is achieved, and is seen to be achieved, is for all the parties on the receiving end to know exactly where they stand and what they are expected to do with the scheme. That is why it is strange—indeed, quite disappointing—that Clause 2 of the Bill suggests the exact opposite of that. It says that the Secretary of State may increase the amount of money allocated to a health authority if it appears to him that it performed well against any of the criteria notified to it,
"whether or not the method of measuring their performance against those criteria was also notified to them".
That is an extraordinary provision. It suggests a kind of measure first and manage second approach. If one takes the wording at face value, the Secretary of State could set, for example, patient satisfaction outcomes as a criteria, but then not set the way in which it is to be measured. That would leave the managers flying blind. It would be rather like saying to Members of the Committee that the Peers will be rewarded for their contribution to the work of the House, without saying how that contribution is to be measured. Noble Lords' contribution might be measured according to the number, the length or even the brevity of their speeches. The point is meant to be serious. There is a maxim of management theory which says that you cannot manage what you cannot measure. This is an example.
The Explanatory Notes say that the Secretary of State may need to see how well bodies have done the previous year before setting performance measures for the coming year. All right, but why not notify the method of measurement as soon as it is known? The wording in the clause smacks very much of thinking of the answer first and then setting the question. I do not believe that is acceptable.
There is another way to approach the whole issue. That is the way that is set out in my Amendment No. 17. I should have said at the outset that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21. What concerns me about the whole concept of supplementary payments, as presented by the Government, is the ability of the Secretary of State to micro-manage the NHS. We have already had a graphic illustration with the operation of the waiting list initiative of how disastrous that can be in practice. Waiting list targets have been set by Ministers, so the only option for managers is to try to meet those targets if they are to access certain funds available to them, but, in doing so, they find that they have no alternative but to distort clinical priorities.
It is a way of proceeding that is the very opposite to being assessed on the quality of outcomes. In a real sense Clause 2 sets that dangerous syndrome in concrete.
Although in Clause 2 we are not dealing with trusts but with health authorities, the point still holds good. I suggest to the Minister that we can retain the worthy idea of rewarding good performance from the centre, but should do it with a light touch. The amendment would leave it to health authorities to set their own

1085
objectives so that local knowledge and clinical needs are properly catered for. However, it would also provide for Ministers to approve and make sure that the objectives were soundly based. There would doubtless be scope for Ministers to urge local health authorities to adopt targets which were slightly more ambitious than the ones they had first thought of. But one distinct advantage would be that, because it would have set the assessment criteria, there would be no possibility o f a health authority being ignorant of the way in which its performance was to be assessed.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support these amendments. I have worked as a professional manager for something like 30 years—I had to pause to recall how long it has been. I must say that if you are going to move the goalposts after setting the original performance criteria and not notify someone about how it is proposed to measure whether they have ultimately succeeded, you are in a pretty arbitrary employment situation. It seems to me that the same principle would apply in this clause.
The amendment has been drafted extremely well. It would make the clause a far less arbitrary instrument in terms of resource allocation. I commend that to the Minister.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to make a small point. I am not a professional manager, but I have been involved in management for a long time. One of the main tasks of the management process is to set objectives. Furthermore, having been on the receiving end—while serving on a university governing body—of something rather like this system—in my case, concerning the allocation of money for research—it does not take long for intelligent managers to begin to play the system. That means that the system then quite often has to be changed, or the managers get the better of those setting the objectives. I believe that there may be an enormous trap here.
I may be over-simplifying the case a little, but this is a basic principle which I am rather surprised that the Government think will operate successfully.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I suspect that we shall debate the question of central/local relationships in the National Health Service in a number of clauses. The debate generated in relation to this clause very much reflects the need to get right the balance between national direction—which is appropriate in view of the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament for the running of the NHS—and the need for local managers to be given sufficient room to lead and to make any necessary changes.
I do not believe that anyone, when looking back over 52 years of the NHS, would ever say that this balance has been entirely right. Indeed, I give due notice that I can cite plenty of examples of undue centralisation conducted by the last government which
1086
I intend to bring to the attention of noble Lords at various stages of our debate. However, if we are serious about this matter, we must acknowledge that it is never easy to get the balance exactly right in a service like the NHS. That is why I am optimistic that, through earned autonomy and the traffic light system, we have found a way to achieve it. We shall reward the good performers by intervening less, but we shall intervene more on those who are not up to the task. The clause is designed precisely to achieve that. It is not concerned with micro-management, nor is it concerned with moving goalposts during the financial year.
Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 17 which, essentially, would allow health authorities to set their own objectives to secure the release of the performance fund. I suggest that it would also allow health authorities separately to define the performance criteria and how they are to be measured prior to the release of the fund. Much as I admire health authorities and uphold their honesty and decency, I have to say that I believe that there is a real danger that the amendment would create a perverse incentive. It could encourage health authorities to define objectives that would release the performance fund which they knew that they could achieve. That might not be consistent with the priorities set out in the NHS Plan.
It is wholly consistent with the purpose of the performance fund, tied into the NHS Plan, for national targets to be set. However, that does not mean that we should set unrealistic objectives. The whole process of NHS planning involves Department of Health regional offices negotiating individual objectives and targets with health communities that define their contribution to nationally set objectives. I should also make it clear that it does not mean that an overly prescriptive approach will be adopted as to how the performance fund is spent.
The system of earned autonomy outlined in the NHS Plan gives complete freedom to better-performing green light NHS bodies over how they will spend their share of the fund, while yellow light bodies will negotiate and agree their spending with regional offices. It is only in the case of the minority—I very much hope that it will be a small minority— of poor-performing red light bodies that the new modernisation agency will determine how the share of the fund will be spent.
We sent out a consultation document on 18th January with ideas about how the performance fund might be developed. We have received from the health service a large number of very helpful comments. We shall issue guidance shortly to the NHS on how the performance fund will work. At the end of the day it is right that the essential framework should be set by the Secretary of State.
I now turn to Amendment No. 18 and the suggestion that the goal-posts can be moved during the financial year. Let me make it clear that in all cases the criteria against which a health authority's performance will be measured must be notified in advance. There is no suggestion, and this power would

1087
not make it possible, that we should make additional payments to health authorities based on their performance when the criteria against which they would be measured had not been notified to them in advance. For example, we could not inform health authorities of additional criteria halfway through the year and then make payments based on their performance against those criteria during the year.
This is not a question of moving the goal-posts. It is simply a question of practicalities. The annual assessment of traffic light status will not be available until some time into the new year, because it reflects performance over the whole of the previous financial year. So it would not be sensible for us to set the precise method of measuring performance against the notified criteria for the coming year without seeing the results for the previous year, and in particular how individual performance indicators have worked.
I can assure the Committee that we intend to consult the NHS each year on the introduction of new performance indicators or the amendment of existing ones. We should want to avoid, for example, introducing indicators which might produce perverse incentives. It would not always be possible to conduct a consultation process and assess the results before the start of the assessment period.
Amendment No. 21 reflects a point that the noble Earl has made previously in relation to transparency. As I said in response to earlier amendments, I believe that sufficient arrangements exist for demonstrating overall accountability to Parliament for NHS allocations and expenditure. The process begins with a parliamentary vote on the estimated expenditure for the NHS prior to the start of the financial year. The actual expenditure of the department funded through allocations to the NHS is provided at the end of the financial year in the published appropriation accounts of the department. The financial accounts of NHS bodies are published after the financial year ends. These include details of income and expenditure. As I have indicated, central budgets allocated to the health service are announced. These arrangements have been in place for many years. They were used by the previous government as well as by this Government and they clearly demonstrate an acceptable level of accountability to Parliament.
Overall, I believe that this is a very sensible approach. It gives the right incentive to enable health authorities and the whole of the NHS to wish to improve their performance. I believe that as a result of the consultation process on the new performance system we shall produce a system which will be seen to be fair and which will operate well, and one which the health service will feel ownership of.
Lord Clement-Jones: As quite a strong supporter of the new earned autonomy system, I feel rather less satisfied now than I did at the beginning of the Minister's response. There is a real cultural problem here. Quite honestly, if I applied what the Minister said to any organisation of which I had any experience I should find myself with a revolution on my hands. The
1088
setting of objectives is a mutual process. The noble Lord says, "We don't leave it to health authorities to come back to us with some suggested objectives; effectively, we set them. However, there are some safeguards". It is like me saying to my employees, "I'm not going to carry out an appraisal this year, I'll jolly well tell you what your objectives are".
The Minister says that the clause is not overly prescriptive, but this provision is bolted into its structure. I became more and more uneasy as I listened to his response. It is rather like looking at the objectives of one of my people and saying, "What we're after is X per cent growth this year", and then, six months later, saying, "Aha! It wasn't based on turnover, it was profit", which is a different system of measurement. It is extraordinary. We seem to have a system where the Secretary of State has all the cards and, culturally, the health authority is totally at the mercy of the centre.
The Minister has assured us that there are safeguards involved, but the culture of the clause is deeply unsatisfactory. We are not talking about a mutual discussion, or a mutual agreement; the system seems to me to be very centralist. Indeed, it is far more centralist than I thought it was when we started the discussion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: At the risk of disappointing the noble Lord, I should like to speak further on the matter. In a national service, which is accountable to Parliament, it is surely right for the Secretary of State to take a leadership role in relation to encouraging the improvement of performance. That is what the performance fund is about. Surely it is right for the Secretary of State to set the criteria under which those performance arrangements will take place. It is a national service.
We are having a debate with the health service at present about the criteria, the targets, the "must dos", and the other targets that will need to be reached, to enable those bodies to become green light bodies. That is only right. As the years go by, we expect to have a close dialogue with the NHS. However, at the end of the day, it must be for the Secretary of State to set those criteria.
Lord Clement-Jones: At this stage of the proceedings, I am glad that I can respond to the Minister. As I said, I am all in favour of strong leadership, but objectives must be set in a mutual fashion. That does not appear to be the case under this clause.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have just consulted on a detailed paper, which asked for the views of the health service on how the whole programme should work. We shall continue to do that on a regular basis. Unless the NHS feels confident that we have the right system, clearly it will not work. I agree with the

1089
philosophy that the noble Lord is espousing; namely, that. at the end of the day, those concerned must feel that it is a fair system.
Earl Howe: I listened with great attention to the exchange between the noble Lord and the Minister. I am right with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this point. I have to say that I do not believe that the Minister has dispelled the doubts that I raised. I extend the point made by the noble Lord in the following sense. After spending hours and weeks of their time ensuring that they achieve certain targets, it is demotivating in the extreme for managers, who believe that they are doing everything that is required of them, to find that their way of evaluating the performance of their authority is not quite the same as the method employed by the Secretary of State. I am worried that the Bill explicitly leaves the way open for such a situation to arise.
I understand what the Minister said about the difference between setting criteria and what one might describe as the "weighting" attached to the performance. However, it still seems to me that the clause allows the Secretary of State to notify performance criteria to an authority without telling it what weight will be attached to those particular targets in the context of overall performance. Once that happens, you create a situation where the managers on the ground are in the dark about the resources that they need to allocate to address the particular issue. They may well allocate some money to the problem that the Minister thinks is appropriate, but they may allocate more money than he believes to be appropriate. But how are they to know?
I am disappointed that the Minister does not see more merit in my bottom-up approach to the setting of targets. It does not seem to be so difficult to do. There is no question in my mind of carte blanche being given to health authorities to set their own targets. I made it clear that Ministers would decide whether or not the targets were reasonable—the kind of mutual process to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. However, more important is the psychological point that a bottom-up approach would enable managers to feel a real sense of ownership of the targets they attempt to meet. They would know that these targets were 100 per cent relevant to the needs of their area. That will not always be the case under the scheme proposed by the Government. That is to be regretted.
However, having said that, I think that we have probably exhausted the topic for the time being. Like the noble Lord, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said as it may contain more words of comfort than I realised when the Minister was speaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: The Explanatory Notes tell us that Clause 2 is directly linked to the concept of earned autonomy in the so-called "traffic light" system of ranking health authorities.
It is easy to see how the best authorities, rated as green light authorities, come within the clause as it is drafted. The clause refers to satisfying objectives and performing well against criteria. That is indeed what green light authorities will do in order to earn extra funding. What is less easy to see is how, as the clause is worded, the yellow and red light authorities can be allocated extra money, albeit with strings attached, if I can put it that way.
By definition, yellow and red light authorities have failed in some measure to satisfy the objectives that they have been set. How does a clause which provides only for success cater for those health authorities that are not successful? Anyone reading the clause might be forgiven for thinking that the idea is to reward green light authorities with extra money but not to reward yellow and red light authorities. Yet we are told that even the less good or failing authorities will receive extra money. I simply do not understand how the clause achieves what the Explanatory Notes say that it does.
My other question relates to the way in which the traffic light system will work. My noble friend Lady Noakes said quite correctly during the debate on the gracious Speech last December that the NHS Plan anticipated a 25/75/25 per cent split between green, yellow and red light authorities respectively. yet she received a letter subsequently from the Minister which stated:
"Work to develop a fully operational traffic light system is still ongoing and no decision has yet been taken as to exactly how or how many NHS bodies will be classified green, yellow or red. Therefore it is incorrect to assert that 25 per cent of health bodies will automatically have red status, as was suggested in the King's Fund article in the HSJ on 7th December".
So much of the detail of the NHS Plan seems to be changing and evolving that it often looks as if the department is making things up as it goes along. Of course, I am sure that it is not. We need to be told with a little more clarity how in the first instance it is envisaged that health authorities and, indeed, other health bodies within the scheme will be classified as to their colour and what sort of split between green, yellow and red Ministers have in mind. How many green light authorities are there likely to be? Will there be any kind of quota or limit set on those numbers and, if so, will the quota be large or small? What of red light status? At the moment we do not know whether the red light is to be an exceptional measure for a seriously failing authority or trust or whether it is likely to be accorded to a significant number of organisations. Without that information we simply cannot tell how the scheme is likely to operate or what its impact will be on the NHS. If there are arbitrary limits placed on the number of authorities eligible to receive red light

1091
status, be it 10 per cent, 25 per cent or even 50 per cent, there is bound to be considerable damage done to NHS morale.
Good managers in the NHS have a choice. They can go and work for an authority that has earned its autonomy and can spend money as it chooses or they can apply to work for an authority whose extra money may only be spent in ways laid down by the NHS Executive. For which working environment would you opt? Would you not want to be paid more to go to a failing authority than to go to a successful one? As far as I can see, there is no provision here for incentives of that kind.
The over-arching problem with the traffic lights scheme is the one to which I have already referred. How do those organisations at the bottom of the pile succeed in recruiting and retaining staff in the face of their red light status, and what is certain to be a terrible dent to staff morale? How do they present themselves to the public as places in which patients would want to be treated? One can imagine a doctor telling a patient that he needs an operation and the good news is that the waiting list at the local acute hospital is quite short, but the bad news is that it is classified by the Government as red and failing. What the patient cannot say is "send me to another hospital". If he says that the doctor will be obliged to tell him that as a patient, effectively, he has no choice as to where he is treated because of the limitations placed on freedom of referral.
The flaw in the system as currently proposed is that hospitals will be encouraged to compete with each other for the valued green light status. They will be competing to meet targets set by the Secretary of State. Those targets will not necessarily be those directly in the clinical interests of patients, the waiting list initiative being an example and the cancer pledge being another. They will be in a double bind. To meet politically driven targets such as the waiting list initiative they may have to compromise on clinical priorities. Even when they have done that successfully they may still not achieve green light status because they will find that the quota of green light organisations is full up. Without each and every hospital having the realistic prospect of achieving green light status because of the limit imposed on how many can get it, there will always be yellow and red light hospitals struggling to present themselves as attractive to both staff and the public. It will be a very difficult trick to pull. We all agree with the need to drive up quality in the NHS, but I have grave doubts whether an openly divisive scheme like this is the way to do it.
10 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I hold a slightly different position with respect to the traffic lights system. I believe that properly applied it could be a very effective way of ensuring that quality standards are improved in the NHS and that we see a
1092
considerable increase in quality. It is an edifice on which a great deal of the success of the NHS Plan is predicated.
Since it was announced my party has always had doubts about the fixed allocation or the possibility of fixed allocation. There have been mixed messages coming from the department and the Minister about there being a fixed allocation of red, green and yellow status. Initially, it appeared that there would be such an arbitrary allocation. Later, messages have suggested that that is not the case. Certainly, at Second Reading the Minister denied that there was going to be a fixed allocation. The more detail the Minister can give about that the better. If there is a situation where a red light status trust or health authority cannot move into the next category—although by any reasonable standards it has met the criteria—that is grossly unfair. It means that one is "disincentivising" managers, lowering morale and effectively driving them into trusts which are already in a different category. That is an extremely negative way to proceed. A proper performance management system should not operate in that way. It should give every chance for the failing hospitals to achieve a higher status.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised many extremely good points. Since the consultation on the performance management system is so important, can the Minister undertake to make public the framework of performance management which the health authorities have agreed as the sensible way forward? If that is a possibility, perhaps the noble Lord can give the dates that we are talking about. It is an important new instrument. If we are to make the best use of new resources, we have to ensure that the system works and is not an arbitrary, centralising process. I have argued that it is not; but I do not want to be proved wrong in a couple of years' time.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support both noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the Minister for sending me the NHS Plan implementing the performance improvement agenda, the consultation document to which reference has been made. I have read it and I found it of great interest. It explained to me clearly how the system will work. The figure of 25 per cent is mentioned as regards "green" organisations—those which are perceived to have succeeded. What measurements were taken on that? I assume that there is consultation on the "must dos" and the performance indicators. But what is so magic about 25 per cent—a quarter? What evidence was taken in order to choose that figure; or was it plucked out of the air?
I assume that there has been much consultation with selected people in order to draw up the consultation document. But for health authorities alone there are 10 "must dos", 38 major priority areas, with 39 associated performance indicators. That is something like 87 suggested targets. I think that that is demoralising. It is a straitjacket. With those figures and targets, there is no room for local autonomy and local decision making or for local priorities to be set on local needs. Surely health authorities are meant to look at local needs and reflect them in local priorities.

1093
I understand the view that there are too many performance indicators, "must dos", targets and so on. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what they will be cut down to. In my experience, if one wants to achieve something one needs a slimmed down version that people will want.
I echo what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. I believe that if progress is to be made, if services are to be improved, then local people have to be allowed to be creative, to use their imagination, to take risks and, above all, to be forgiven when things go wrong. Forgiveness is lacking in the health service. That is why some of us have strong reservations about this traffic light system. I accept what the Minister said about the Secretary of State, his ministerial team, officials within the department and the NHS executive providing leadership. But if everyone has to achieve this rigid grid, it is demoralising and will not work. People will not have ownership of it. There will not be enough room for manoeuvre. When it goes wrong, they will be beaten over the head again.
Beaten over the head is the right phrase, because they will be in the hands of the Modernisation Agency. I have not met the Modernisation Agency, but it does not sound like a friendly, cuddly helper. It sounds like a remote quango that comes in to take over the management of a local trust and health authority. Why does the Modernisation Agency always succeed when local people fail? Where do these people come from? How did they come to be supermen and superwomen who know how to manage brilliantly something that may be hundreds of miles away? How does the system work? It looks pretty frightening to me.
Where does the agency's accountability lie? Why does it have an amazing capacity to micromanage when local people cannot do so? This is a big brother approach to something that could be sorted out in another way.
Lastly, I should like to know how this brilliant agency is going to manage all these wonderful things so cleverly. It will have to keep an eye on around three quarters of the NHS body. That is an enormous task. How does the Minister think that it will all work?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We come again to this fascinating; issue, which is crucial to the future success of the running of the huge organisation called the National Health Service in a way that discharges proper accountability to Parliament. I have been a Minister answering questions in your Lordships' House for nearly two years. Very rarely am I asked to give away control or decentralise. The emphasis of the parliamentary debate and focus is on Ministers taking more control, regulating more and having more information. That is one pressure that is always on health Ministers. I agree with everything that has been said about the need to allow for local determination, flexibility, growth and leadership. It is difficult to get the balance right.
We already use the traffic light system in a number of areas. Winter planning is a good example. We have developed a process of identifying those parts of the
1094
country that look as though they are not going to succeed. That results in greater intervention and help for those places. The system has proved outstandingly successful. The health and social care services have coped magnificently this winter with the pressures put on them. As with earned autonomy, those health communities that are doing well and are seen to have things sorted out are left alone, but intervention is necessary for places that look as though they are in trouble.
The second part of our approach is based on our experience in the past three years. When authorities or trusts seem to have specific problems, often the best form of intervention is to send a team of people who are experienced in working at the front line to help the poorly performing organisation sort the problems out. That answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. That is how we should approach poorly performing organisations. We need rapid identification of the fact that they are in trouble and then help to allow them to get out of trouble. That help comes not from academics or people sitting in an office in Richmond House, but from people who have done the job successfully at local level. In other words, we have a learning organisation.
I again stress that the proposals for the working of the traffic lights system have been the subject of consultation. No final decisions have been made. There are three band definitions for the traffic lights system. First, the green organisations will meet what could be described as the "must do" core national targets that will be set, which we think will initially involve about 20 per cent of all organisations, but that has to be a fluid figure. As we gain experience in developing the system, it will be reconsidered and changed if we think it appropriate.
For a health authority, the examples in the consultation paper of core (or "must do") national targets may be waiting targets, emergencies, reduced levels of delayed discharges, financial balance or clinical quality measures. In addition, there may be other performance indicators on a second list, which for a health authority may involve programmes aimed at reducing smoking, preventing the illicit use of drugs and teenage pregnancy. The consultation paper explores those options in some detail.
I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that it would be very difficult for the health service to respond to a huge number of different targets. I agree that the challenge for us is to try to keep those targets to as limited a number as possible. The noble Baroness will understand that that is not always easy because of the natural pressure on government to ensure that every area of concern or every client group is included in those targets. We shall have to balance those two conflicts, which I believe will be quite difficult.
The yellow organisations will meet their core national targets, but they will not be in the top 25 per cent of performers overall. They will succeed in the "must dos" but may be weaker in some of the other performance targets that are set. I can tell the noble

1095
Earl, Lord Howe, that the intention is to encourage more and more organisations to become green light organisations. I agree with him that it would be demotivating if over the years we had very arbitrary percentage figures for one category and another category; but that is not the intention.
I can also tell the noble Earl that I very much hope that the number of red organisations will be limited. I do not agree with him that it necessarily becomes a wholly demoralising situation for an organisation to be classified as red. I believe that there are examples in the NHS of organisations having patently been seen to fail, which has acted as a spur to people to improve their performance and get their act together. That surely must be the aim of these arrangements.
The Modernisation Agency is not a draconian arm of central government coming down to hammer local NHS organisations. It is very much a helping agency—helping people to make change and design new services—and a centre of excellence using people with practical skills who have succeeded at local level. Linked to the Modernisation Agency is our Leadership Centre, which is designed to give much greater support to people in leadership positions, whether clinicians or lay managers. It will play a much more proactive role in ensuring that we have the kind of people, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whom we will need to lead change and particularly deal with red performing organisations.
From the explanation that I have given, I hope that Members of the Committee will see that we are going to adopt a sensible, sensitive approach. There is a clear need for ownership by the NHS in these arrangements in order to ensure that they work effectively. The whole purpose of consultation is to ensure that that ownership is put in place. Of course, we shall learn by experience and shall make changes as necessary.
Earl Howe: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister to comment on the point that I made at the outset. I could not see how the clause, as drafted, caters for yellow and red light organisations because it is expressed in terms of satisfying objectives and performing well against criteria. By definition, yellow and red light authorities do not satisfy objectives and do not perform well against criteria, yet they will still receive extra funds. I do not understand how the clause works.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I said earlier that we do not need the clause to make the current performance payments that we are making because they are made on a fair-share basis. At present, every NHS organisation will receive its fair share of the performance fund. Organisations which do well will have much greater freedom to use the funds in the way that they wish. This clause would allow us to move on from that situation. At some stage in the future, we
1096
may well wish to make additional payments to green light organisations as an extra incentive. That is what the clause allows us to do.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I take the point that he made about red light status. Of course, it could act as a spur to those who work for the health body to institute measures to improve the performance of the body. However, I believe that if red light status lasts for more than a short time, there is a distinct risk that it will become, as it were, a self-fulfilling prophecy because it will lead to the migration of staff. I believe that the challenge will be to ensure that red light status does not hang over an organisation for more than a certain time.
This has been a useful short debate. I thank the Minister again for what he said.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Supplementary payments to NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ", at the request of any Health Authority or any trust with the approval of a Health Authority,".
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. These amendments have an obvious purpose: to introduce greater transparency into the way in which additional payments are determined. We cannot expect the Bill to go into minute detail. However, it is remarkably silent as to the basis on which supplementary payments to trusts and PCTs are to be made. Unlike Clause 2, which refers to good performance, there is not even a mention in Clause 3 of any type of criterion or benchmark.
Effectively, what is being proposed is a bypassing of the normal purchaser/provider relationship whereby health authorities pay trusts and PCTs for the services provided. That has a distinct look of central micro-management about it, which makes me uncomfortable. I am prepared to be persuaded that there may be infrequent occasions when an accelerated process of that kind is justified by the prevailing circumstances. When it occurs, it is important for everyone to know what has happened and why. There needs to be a clear public statement of how the payment powers have been used, and health authorities need to know exactly how and why the normal contractual systems have been overridden.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how often he expects those powers to be used, and in what circumstances. The Explanatory Notes speak of rewarding staff performance and improving facilities. Why should those not be dealt with through the normal service level agreements? If they are exceptional, one-off payments, what will determine them?
I fear that the normal system will be undermined either by special pleading from a trust, a PCT or, heaven forbid, even by ministerial favouritism. It is easy to imagine Ministers being lobbied as they go around the country so energetically.
There is nothing in the clause that would prevent that happening. That is why I suggested in my amendments that it should be the health authority itself that requests the supplementary payment, or at least approves it, so as to retain the semblance of accountability through the normal commissioning chain. In itself, that device would not alter the mechanism for payment, but it would promote transparency and a slight check would be built into the system to prevent money being paid across to trusts in inappropriate circumstances, such as those to which I referred.
Baroness Cumberlege: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Howe. I am concerned that the Secretary of State is seeking powers directly to reward staff working within a particular trust, or to improve facilities. This is very detailed stuff, according to the Explanatory Notes.
The Secretary of State will bypass the allocation formula, the health authority and the management of the trust. In my view, that is micro-management writ large. In the helpful meeting that the Minister held in the Moses Room, he explained that it was a way of cutting red tape and bureaucracy. I have some sympathy with that because I know how frustrating it can be. However, systems bring safeguards, which are extremely important in a public service. Service level agreements are drawn up with enormous care; there is a great deal of consultation and many people are involved. They take account of local need, and the input from a large number of people, including the public, is immense. They also implement the health improvement programme, which is the strategy that is adopted locally.
It is possible that under this clause the Secretary of State could act quite arbitrarily and perhaps make some perverse decisions, which have no place in the public service. In the private sector, where there is much more freedom to move, the boards of companies still have to comply with the Greenbury and Cadbury codes—those ethical tenets that have been laid down. It is even more important that a Secretary of State, who is in charge of a huge publicly owned body which affects all our lives, should work in an open and transparent system.
If the system is wrong, or the Minister feels that the bureaucracy has a stranglehold on the NHS, it is time to streamline the bureaucracy. Perhaps the Minister should be humble enough to recognise that local decisions should be taken locally, especially on these detailed matters of rewarding staff and improving facilities.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Those who launched the NHS trust movement would be disappointed to hear the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In a sense we are trying to provide a mechanism by which, on occasion, we can make direct payments to NHS trusts with the normal commissioning arrangements.
1098
This is not an undermining of the commissioning arrangements; it is designed to enable us, on occasion, not to have to go through the normal bureaucratic system under which commissioning operates. The underlying principle of supplementary payments is to make timely direct payments outside the scope of service agreements. The kind of things for which the power would be used is, as has been described, the direct improvement of infrastructure to enable the provision of better services. A good example of that was the injection of £32 million for ward cleaning. The Government took a view some months ago, quite rightly, that the cleanliness of the NHS was a matter of great concern—indeed, your Lordships' House debated it on a number of occasions. To kick start a new approach extra money was injected into the service mid-year. Our ability to do that quickly is important and this clause will allow us to make those payments directly to NHS trusts.
Another example of where this system could be used is money given to ward sisters to improve facilities and the appearance of their wards. That was an outstanding success. It was very much welcomed and was a great boost to morale at ward level. Again, there is a case for allowing the department to make those allocations direct to NHS trusts without going through the normal commissioning arrangements.
I heard the concerns expressed and want to assure Members of the Committee that this is not meant to undermine the normal role of commissioning. It is not meant to take the place of commissioning; indeed, to do so would undermine the whole approach to the development of NHS services. It is simply a more effective and efficient method to make the occasional direct payment to NHS trusts.
In relation to the notification to Parliament, raised in the second amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, I covered those matters in previous debates. The reporting arrangements to Parliament, which are the same as those under the last government, are sufficiently rigorous. When extra direct payments are made such as those for cleaning or for ward sisters to spend on their wards, they are always made as public announcements. I hope, on that basis, that the noble Earl will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Earl Howe: The Minister was a little hard on me and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in drawing the conclusions he did from what we said. I made clear that I was prepared to be persuaded that infrequently there could be compelling and good reasons to make supplementary payments to trusts and PCTs and to do so in a speedy fashion.
I am glad to hear from the Minister that this is a mechanism that is likely to be used relatively rarely and that it will not undermine the normal commissioning process. I am a little disappointed that the Minister could not be more sympathetic to my arguments in favour of somewhat greater transparency and I wonder whether the normal NHS accounting requirements will provide the kind of immediate and accessible information that is so valuable.

1099
Members of this Committee and no doubt Members of another place can table Written Questions to prise out details of supplementary payments when they are made. But it should not be necessary to do that. They should be on the record almost as soon as they have taken place. The announcements to which the Minister referred may or may not apply to every single instance. If they do, that may be satisfactory. We shall have to see.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I confirm that in the year 2000–01, the current financial year, the three direct payments made were all publicly announced.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the Committee for intervening. Those announcements were general and about the whole health service. There was no question of fairness between different parts. If people hear that their trust has received extra money to make their hospital cleaner and the one next door has not, a lot of trouble will be caused. I do not think that we can compare that. I am concerned about the matter. It is a peculiar way to manage fairly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. I refer to the hospital cleaning programme, which I had the pleasure of launching at the Whittington Hospital in August. The public announcement gave details of how much money every NHS organisation received. That was based on a fair formula.
Baroness Cumberlege: Does the Minister not appreciate that there is a lot of frustration in the health service because allocations are pre-empted by top slicing? Many of the managers who spoke to me said, "We would have sparkling clean wards if we had the amount of money to spend that we want". However, as I explained earlier in Committee, so much has been top sliced. There is no room to manoeuvre and the frustration is enormous.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Even with top slicing the health service is receiving huge amounts of additional resources—record amounts. There will always be a balance between the allocation made to the NHS locally and the retention of money at central government level to give particular impetus to core national priorities. I accept that there is a debate as to how that balance should fall. However, I do not think that we will ever get away from retention of some moneys at national level.
Earl Howe: As the Minister indicated, this will be a running theme, not only throughout the Bill but, I suspect, for as long as the Session lasts. It is a fascinating topic. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In section 97D of the 1977 Act (financial duties of Primary Care Trusts), in subsection (1)(b), after "section" there shall be inserted ", apart from subsection (5A)"."
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a number of government amendments which have been tabled. I regret that we have to do this. However, I believe we have done rather better than with the NHS Bill we took through the House last Session.
This is a technical amendment, purely consequential to the 1997 Act. Although the new subsection (5A) of Section 97C of the 1997 Act enables the Secretary of State to make supplementary payments direct to a primary care trust, Section 97D of that Act did not allow for such payments to be taken into account when determining the primary care trust limit on expenditure for the financial year in question. In other words, the primary care trust could receive the extra payments but could not increase its expenditure for that year by an equivalent amount.
Section 97D of the 1977 Act sets a limit on the annual expenditure of a primary care trust. It provides that in any financial year a primary care trust may not spend more than the aggregate of the various types of income it receives in that year. Paragraph (a) refers to sums allocated to the trust by the health authority. Paragraph (b) refers to sums received under the 1977 Act other than the sums received under Section 97. Those words exclude the income from health authority allocations, but unfortunately they would also exclude supplementary payments from the Secretary of State which would be paid under the new paragraph 5A of Section 97.
This amendment resolves the problem by excluding supplementary payments under Section 97C(5A) from the ambit of the words
"other than sums received by it under that section."
Supplementary payments will therefore be added to the aggregate amount which the PCT is permitted to spend in the financial year in which the payment is made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 15th March 2001.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 94 [Management functions: supplementary]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 44, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Where under subsection (1) the RTM company owes to a person who is landlord under the lease with respect to repairs, the company shall (except in relation to any right of re-entry or forfeiture) be deemed to be a lessee of that person for the purposes of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938.").
The noble Lord said: I come to kick off the fourth day of this marathon—if "kick off" is the right term. It is possible that landlords will try to harass right-to-manage companies by taking them to court to maintain standards of repair at a higher level than is in fact needed. That actually happened with residential leases in the 1930s. The result was the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938.
The Act stated that landlords could not take actions to enforce repairing covenants in a lease with more than three years to run without obtaining the leave of the court. They could obtain the leave of the court only on specified grounds, such as damage to the value of the reversion, or the fact that works carried out at the present time would be a great deal cheaper than if the property were allowed to deteriorate.
We believe that right-to-manage companies should be in the same position as they would be if they were tenants and should have the benefit of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may be surprised to hear that we support his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We certainly support the intention behind the amendment because we do not want there to be oppressive legal challenges against the right-to-manage company by unscrupulous landlords based on spurious grounds. However, we are not convinced that going back to the 1938 Act is the best way forward. Questions as to whether a failure to repair had damaged the landlord's reversionary interest are likely to increase the scope for disputes and litigation rather than reduce them. If we try to qualify the duty owed to particular parties, we are likely to run into the same problem, and that may also lead to unintended omissions.
The main sanction against a right-to-manage company under the Bill would be the appointment of a new manager under Part II of the Landlord and
CWH 188
Tenant Act 1987. I can assure the Committee that leasehold valuation tribunals view this power as an extreme sanction. Appointments are made only if there is clear evidence of persistent and serious shortcomings. We expect the tribunals to take a similar approach to applications to remove a right-to-manage company.
I should also add, if it is of any comfort, that we are providing tribunals with additional sanctions to deter frivolous and vexation applications, including a limited power to award costs against the party concerned. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: That provides some reassurance. I shall consider what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 171A:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS: INSURANCE
("—(1) Notwithstanding the specific terms of any lease of the whole or part of the building, any person responsible for management functions in relation to the premises shall ensure that the entire building is insured under a single insurance policy.
(2) Any person responsible for arranging an insurance policy under subsection (1) shall be under a duty to obtain best value for the service charge payers in procuring a suitable policy.
(3) If, in the opinion of any party to a lease, the insurance policy arranged in accordance with subsection (1) does not represent best value for the service charge payers, they may refer the matter to the leasehold valuation tribunal for determination.
(4) Any reference of an insurance policy to a leasehold valuation tribunal under this section shall be supported by an alternative quotation for insurance cover from a recognised and reputable supplier to support the case; and the leasehold valuation tribunal shall not consider any such reference unless it is supported by such an alternative quotation.
(5) The duty to arrange insurance under subsection (1) applies notwithstanding the existence of a dispute which has been referred to the leasehold valuation tribunal.
(6) In determining any dispute referred to it under subsection (3), the leasehold valuation tribunal shall take into account—

(a) the extent of cover procured, and

(b) the level of premium payable by individual service charge payers.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment requires the building to be covered by a single insurance policy, regardless of who arranges it. It requires whoever arranges that policy to provide best value for the service charge payers. The policy may be challenged on the grounds that it does not offer this value but there must always be a policy in place, even if it is subject to challenge. Any challenge must be supported by an alternative quote.
As drafted, the Bill transfers the right of the landlord under the lease to arrange insurance for the building but does not prevent anyone insuring the whole or any part of the building at their own expense. The importance of having a single building insurance policy cannot be overstated.
The impact is perhaps best illustrated by the example of Rose Court in Putney, which was destroyed by a gas explosion in 1985. It transpired that the individual leaseholders were responsible for insuring their own flats and that many had failed to make adequate arrangements for the restitution of the building. The consequence was that the insurance cover could not meet the cost of reinstating the building, so leaving leaseholders with the problem of finding new accommodation while still retaining an outstanding mortgage liability.
The purpose of the amendment is to go beyond the parallel right of the landlord to challenge the RTM's choice of insurers by adding an obligation for there to be a single building policy in force at all times, and to require that this policy represents best value rather than only the cheapest option. The courts have confirmed in the past that freeholders are not required to opt for the cheapest insurance quotation but, rather, are obliged to obtain the best deal available.
There is no requirement that the RTM company make insurance arrangements separate from those which existed when the management was undertaken by the landlords. Many landlords use bulk purchasing power to provide the best deal that they can for their tenants. It may not be possible for a single building to obtain such favourable terms. This amendment provides a mechanism for the landlord, or any other party to the lease, to challenge an insurance arrangement on the grounds that it does not represent best value to the service charge payers and to offer an alternative and possibly a better deal.
Indeed, it is possible that, if a sufficient number of buildings were withdrawn from the landlord's collective arrangements, the landlord would not be able to obtain such favourable terms for those buildings which remain within his portfolio, thus prejudicing the interests of others.
Many freeholders, as Members of the Committee are well aware, are concerned that one of the effects of leaseholders claiming the right to manage will be to disrupt insurance arrangements. For many of those landlords whose portfolios are made up primarily of ground rent investments, the right to earn commission from the provision of buildings insurance represents a principal element of value. They are, therefore, understandably worried that the effect of a claim, or even the prospect of a claim, for the right to manage could result in those portfolios being devalued.
I am, of course, only too well aware that there are freeholders who exploit the right to provide insurance by charging commissions which can only be regarded as excessive. I wholeheartedly condemn that practice wherever it occurs.
Finally, one aspect of insurance in mixed use buildings where the right to manage has been exercised, is the risk of double insurance by both the landlord and the RTM company as each seeks to fulfil its obligations. Most business leases include an obligation on the landlord to insure the building and then to charge back the premium as an insurance rent.
The landlord may not be in a position to vary the terms of the arrangement with the tenant and so may remain contractually bound to insure the building.
That can be avoided only if there is a single insurance policy for the whole building, which may, in itself, be achieved only by establishing mutual enforceability of covenants via a separate management agreement. Permitting each to insure their own interest is simply not practicable. If the landlord insured the ground floor commercial elements on which he had long-standing leases, and the RTM company insured the remaining residential elements above and a fire in the commercial units destroyed the building, it is unlikely that the landlord's insurance for those parts would cover the damage to the residential parts. It may even be that the leaseholders were no longer able to enjoy beneficial occupation; but the landlord would have had no interest to insure and so there would be no consequential loss to recover the material damage. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I return the compliment made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. On this occasion we broadly support his amendment. It seems to us that a single insurance policy covering a whole building is an essential element; indeed, our Amendment No. 238YA (formerly Amendment No. 237) includes, among a number of other provisions, a power to vary leases so as to ensure that there is an obligation to insure the whole building under a single policy. This obviously makes good practical sense, and we support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): At the risk of creating too broad a consensus, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we have some sympathy with what lies behind his amendment, although I do not support it as it stands. Clearly, in almost all circumstances it would be better for a block of flats to be subject to one insurance policy which covered the whole building for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spelt out. We would also expect anybody who took out that insurance to follow the principles of best value, as he also said. However, later in the process of the Bill we shall come to our own proposals to address these issues. Members of the Committee may recall that the consultation paper of August 2000 floated the idea that the absence of a requirement to take out a single insurance policy for the block should be made clear grounds for the variation of the relevant leases. We prefer that approach to what is in this amendment, which overrides the terms of the leases.
A number of noble Lords have tabled later amendments relating to the question of variation of leases, which arises first in Amendment No. 195. We can perhaps discuss that in more general terms later. As to that, it is the Government's intention to bring forward some proposals.
Leaseholders already have a right to challenge the "reasonableness" element of the service charge, including insurance, so there is an incentive for best value, in that the landlord who has taken out

CWH 191
unnecessarily expensive insurance, for example, may find himself unable to recover the full costs of that from the leaseholders if they appeal against it. Our proposed amendment to Section 20 of the 1995 Act will also provide some protection to require the landlord to consult before taking out insurance contracts which last more than 12 months.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others accept that these measures are intended to address the problem which has been rightly identified. I also hope that the noble Lord understands why we cannot accept that more stringent requirements should be placed on the RTM company in taking out insurance of the property than would apply to any other landlord, or any other manager in these circumstances. We believe that at a later stage we shall devise a better way to deal with the fundamental problem.
Lord Richard: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question on one matter which I do not quite follow. I can see what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seek to achieve. But if one looks at Amendment No. 195, which my noble friend indicated was the approach he preferred, that gives the RTM company the right to make the application if the insurance of a flat is defective; in other words, it is a permissive right. If it wishes to make the application, it can. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seeks to place an obligation on them. I would have thought that, as opposed to the permissive right on the one hand and the actual obligation on the other hand, there is a lot to be said for having an obligation for single insurance rather than merely having the right to apply for a variation of the lease in order to try to achieve it. Will my noble friend expand a little on why he rejects the mandatory nature of the amendment?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may follow up on that point. I may not be here when we get to Amendment No. 195 as I am chairing a meeting elsewhere.
With regard to Amendment No. 195, which has just been mentioned—and, indeed, to Amendment No. 171A—does a leasehold valuation tribunal have a right to interpret a lease? I have been contacted by tenants about whether or not it will be given such a role. Tenants say that that is not clear in the legislation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I referred to the group of amendments which includes Amendment No. 195 because those amendments deal with the variation of leases in general. I am not necessarily commending the exact terms of Amendment No. 195 in order to deal with this problem. In that general context, we will propose grounds for changing a lease. Part of the grounds for changing a lease would be to write into the varied lease the obligation to insure the building as a whole.
I am not prepared at this stage to go down the road of a mandatory requirement through that mechanism in relation to the RTM. As I said in my previous
CWH 192
remarks, one would be putting on to the RTM an obligation that one would not put on any other landlord in those circumstances. Generally speaking, we have tried not to place any further thresholds on the proper operation of an RTM than exist for any other manager or landlord of the property. The ability to vary the lease should deal with the problem where it is identified.
As to an LVT's ability to interpret the lease, as I understand it, an LVT's responsibilities are confined to the application of the lease and whether the terms of the lease have been followed. It cannot expand or elaborate on the terms of the lease. It may be more sensible if I write to the noble Baroness on that question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The point that was made to me by various tenants' groups was that many leases are defective and are therefore unclear. If you plan to vary a lease, you have to know what the lease is. Tenants feel that if the leasehold valuation tribunal could determine what the terms of the lease were that may be an answer to the problem. I do not expect an answer on this point today. I am happy to wait for a letter.
At the moment, the leasehold valuation tribunal tends to refer people to a court to have their lease interpreted; the matter then goes back to the leasehold valuation tribunal, and so it becomes an expensive football.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for returning the compliment. I should like to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for saying what I hope I would have said had he not said it first.
The tone of the Minister's response was extremely constructive and most sympathetic. I should like to reflect on what he said, see what he says when we get to Amendment No. 195, and then perhaps return to the matter on Report with a different amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 [Functions relating to approvals]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 175 not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Approvals: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 175A not moved.]
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Enforcement of tenant covenants]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 46, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The RTM company shall assist and co-operate with the landlord, or any other person by whom tenant covenants arc enforceable, in the enforcement of any covenant which has not been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: Under Clauses 97 and 98, a landlord retains the right to step in and enforce tenant covenants if the RTM company does not for any reason. The amendment requires the RTM company

CWH 193
to assist and co-operate with the landlord if he decides to exercise that right. In other words, the RTM company should not obstruct the enforcement of covenants.
There are two other amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 176B and 176C—and I shall trespass on the Committee's time to speak briefly to them. Amendment No. 176B would render the RTM company liable to recompense the landlord for any loss resulting from its failure to monitor and report on any breaches of tenant covenants under Clause 98. The obvious purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the landlord does not find himself out of pocket as a result of the failure of the company to comply with its duties.
Amendment No. 176C is self-explanatory. The RTM company is unable to exercise the powers of forfeiture or re-entry. If a case requires enforcement and reaches the stage where the use of those powers is justified, it must seek the co-operation of the landlord who remains able to exercise the powers granted to him by the lease. The landlord will not derive any direct benefit from taking enforcement action, particularly if the dispute is in relation to unpaid service charges.
Enforcement proceedings involve costs, which at present can be recovered through the service charge if necessary. However, the landlord no longer has access to that. To ensure that landlords will be willing to support RTM companies where proceedings are necessary, the legislation should state explicitly that the RTM companies will reimburse the landlord's costs. The company will be able to recoup those from the tenant through the service charge. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This group of amendments proposes a number of changes to the provisions governing enforcement of tenant covenants. It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee where we are in the Bill as it stands in order to achieve enforcement of covenants.
Clause 97 already ensures that the RTM company can enforce any of the tenant covenants itself. That is needed so that we can ensure that they can exercise proper management control over the premises and deal with problems that arise, either with the building or with disputes between tenants, where someone breaches the terms of their lease. Because a breach of lease can in some cases, like those concerning the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, affect the landlord's reversionary interest, we have not taken away their right to take enforcement action. So the landlord and the company will both have rights in parallel to one another here.
Clause 98 sets out the responsibilities of the RTM company in respect of monitoring compliance with covenants. I should make clear that this should not be interpreted as being too heavy-handed, but a good leasehold manager will be expected to keep an eye on compliance with covenants and we therefore expect the same from the RTM company. It is also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, that the landlord knows if a breach is causing long-term harm
CWH 194
to his reversionary interest. We are therefore requiring the RTM company to inform the landlord of any breaches which are not put right within three months of their coming to the attention of the company.
Beyond that, we do not see any requirement on the company to have any further explicit requirement to co-operate with the landlord in this manner, because the RTM company itself is under an obligation to enforce the covenants. As such, the company could not be anything but failing in its duties if it were preventing those covenants being enforced. Therefore, that is already covered by the obligations of the RTM company in the Bill.
We certainly are not in favour of the RTM company being made liable for compensation, as one of the amendments would require, at least not in the way that is suggested in the amendment. The landlord would already have a general civil right to take action against someone for failure to comply with a statutory requirement. So unless we provide otherwise—and we have not—the landlord would therefore be able to seek compensation from the RTM company if it fails to meet its obligations under Clause 98. A court would then have to decide what a fair amount of compensation would be.
However, we would consider it wrong to do what these amendments suggest we should do, which is automatically to peg such compensation to the loss caused to the landlord by the breach. Any such sums should be sought from the tenant who was in breach rather than the RTM company, although in some cases there will be a complex inter-relationship.
It is correct to say that the RTM company cannot seek forfeiture but the company has general powers to use against a defaulting leaseholder, such as going to court to enforce a debt. We do not consider that the RTM company will necessarily need to involve the landlord and, therefore, invoke the rather draconian power of forfeiture to settle lesser disputes; for example, disputes over service charges.
The proposed requirement to pay the landlord's costs could also be unfair. As the rights are parallel to the landlord and the RTM company, the landlord will be able to take his own enforcement action at any time, even in the case where the RTM company is itself taking such action to deal with the matter. If the landlord chooses to do so, the costs need to fall on the landlord himself. If there are costs arising from a failure of the RTM company to deal with the matter, these will be recoverable as part of any action for noncompliance with the statute—mainly under Clause 98. The rights of the landlord regarding non-fulfilment of duties are already in the Bill. We do not need the additional powers that are spelled out in the three amendments.
Lord Kingsland: I shall read the noble Lord's speech carefully before deciding whether to retable the amendment for Report stage. Would I be right in concluding from what the noble Lord the Minister said

CWH 195
that he believes that the power of forfeiture is now effectively otiose? Is that why he has weakened it in other parts of the Bill?
Lord Whitty: I tend to try to avoid the word "otiose". It would be true to say that in much of housing and tenure law the use of forfeiture, or the threat of forfeiture, is not appropriate. The noble Lord may be aware that the Law Commission has been looking at the question of forfeiture for some time. In this context, there is some history of the threat of the use of forfeiture being used inappropriately, and therefore we have put certain modifications at other parts of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: Would the noble Lord find it helpful if we were to table a wide-ranging amendment on forfeiture at the Report stage?
Lord Whitty: I am not entirely sure that I should be encouraging anybody to table wide-ranging amendments on forfeiture or anything else at later stages of the Bill, should we reach them. No doubt the issue of forfeiture will be discussed both at this stage and at later stages in the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his diplomatic response. I shall reflect on whether to turn my attention to the wider issues between now and Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 98 [Tenant covenants: monitoring and reporting]:
[Amendments Nos. 176B and 176C not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Right to manage: statutory provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 80, line 48, at end insert—
("(5) Section 26 does not apply.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 177 ensures that a right-to-manage company cannot take advantage of an exemption from prosecution which is granted to certain public sector landlords for non-compliance with certain requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This tidies up the situation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 [Landlord contribution to service charges]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 47, line 19, after ("company") insert ("a sum being that part of").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 178, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 179 and 181, and leave Amendment No. 180 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 180 seek to specify on the face of the Bill how the proportion of costs which fall to the landlord to pay as his contribution to the service charge should be calculated. We would prefer to see the definition of the proportions stated more explicitly.
I am attracted to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Caithness. The substance of it is already likely to exist and, therefore, will perhaps generate less argument. Calculating the proportions by reference to floor area is a viable alternative. However, I am aware that disputes between surveyors over floor area are by no means unusual.
I turn to Amendment No. 181. If a unit were excluded from the right to manage, the amendment would make the person required to pay the service charge on it the superior landlord rather than the direct landlord of a tenant in occupation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Before speaking to Amendment No. 180, which is grouped with this, perhaps I may apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the Committee started. It is very difficult to be in two places at once; in the Chamber talking about foot and mouth disease and in the Moses Room talking about commonhold and leasehold reform. I apologise for my absence, but I was going to lose out on one or the other.
Amendment No. 180 is a very simple amendment. Subsection (4) of Clause 100 refers the internal floor area. That might not be the appropriate or the common way in which the service charge is calculated on the building. It could be done by a service charge or perhaps a rateable value if it were a very old block of flats. Amendment No. 180 seeks to introduce some flexibility into the situation. Should there not be agreement on that flexibility, the matter can be referred to the leasehold valuation tribunal.
Lord Richard: I am a little mystified by the amendments, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I do not see the great difference between the Bill as it would stand if Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 were incorporated into it and the Bill it now stands. If there is a point that is escaping me I shall listen to it with great care and attention. However, as the amendments do not seem to add a great deal to the Bill they seem perhaps a little otiose.
Lord Whitty: This is an interesting area. As you may know, in this area long leases will normally make the leaseholder responsible for paying the service charges, and in a block of flats that will normally be accompanied by a provision to set out how the overall service charge liability is divided up. In many cases, that is on a fairly straightforward basis of their shares, but in some blocks the leases will set down the precise proportion that each leaseholder must make, which may have been based on all kinds of formulae in the past.

CWH 197
Logic suggests that where this applies, the proportions however arrived at, should add up to 100 per cent. Regrettably, however, there are instances where they do not, and that may be because the leases themselves are defective—and there are rights to correct that. But it may also be that the leases were deliberately set to come out to less than 100 per cent in recognition of the fact that the landlord holds some of the units or some of the territory and therefore meets a share of the costs.
To take a simple example, if one flat in a block of four is held by the landlord, each of the leaseholders has to contribute only 25 per cent. Where that applies—and unless we provide otherwise—the newly created RTM company will find itself faced with a shortfall. Of course, the company could seek to amend the leases, but it does not seem right that it should necessarily have to do so. If the landlord met a fixed share of the cost when he was the manager, we consider that he should continue to do so when the RTM company is in effect the manager. Clause 100 is designed to do that.
I hope that what I have said indicates that the landlords should in certain very limited circumstances be liable to meet some of the costs that would otherwise fall on the RTM company, and I hope that these amendments will not be pursued.
As regards Amendment No. 181, it is probably best to say that we cannot see why the freeholders should have to bear the full cost in such circumstances.
On Amendment No. 180, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggests that there should be a choice of alternative formulae for apportioning costs among a number of landlords. I can appreciate the arguments in favour of that. However, we believe that it is better for there to be just one. We want to minimise the opportunity for landlords to be obstructive. If there is a choice to be made, there is a danger that that will lead to further argumentation or further disputes. Those disputes can take a long time, leaving the RTM company out of pocket. That is our initial view on that amendment, but we are not irrevocably wedded to the precise formula currently on the face of the Bill. We obviously consider that floor space is a clear and easily measurable basis for apportionment, but would be happy to look at alternatives. We cannot see that having regard to the leases themselves would work in these circumstances.
The requirement imposed under this clause would apply only where the leases specify the individual proportions payable by each leaseholder. Simply having regard to that will not necessarily provide an answer as to how that should be cross-applied to the landlords. This could again create scope for argument and delay, which we are obviously hoping to avoid. We may return to this matter but we are not convinced at the moment that the opportunity for choice offered by Amendment No. 180 resolves any of the problems.
The Earl of Caithness: I am glad that there is some flexibility in the Government's position on this. The
CWH 198
noble Lord has a very good argument: that if there is one method of calculating a formula it resolves a great many disputes.
However, it should be borne in mind that a number of situations exist throughout the country where the noble Lord's formula would run contrary to the existing formula under which the building is operated. That could lead to all kinds of difficulties as one would then be applying two formulas to running the building.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider this issue. I am glad that the noble Lord said that he was not entirely wedded to his wording. There is a good case for having some sort of flexibility here, where an established pattern has been set and all the tenants are used to it, rather than having to change that and come to a new formula. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is going to take this matter away, I am happy to proceed no further at this stage.
Lord Kingsland: I saw the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, nodding as my noble friend Lord Caithness was sitting down. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 181 not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Cessation of Management]:
[Amendments Nos. 182 and 183 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Agreements excluding or modifying right]:
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 187 not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Application to Crown]:
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Powers of trustees in relation to right]:
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Notices]:
[Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
Clause 108 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 195:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
VARIATION OF LEASES
("—(1) The RTM company shall enjoy the right to make an application to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) for variation of all existing leases which are defective or inadequate in dealing with—

(a) repair or maintenance of the flat, building in which the flat is contained, or land or building let to the tenant under the lease,

CWH 199

(b) insurance of the flat,

(c) maintenance of installations or services reasonably necessary to ensure that the occupier of the flat enjoys a reasonable standard of accommodation,

(d) recovery of expenditure and advance payment on receipt of expenditure,

(e) computation of service charge under the lease,

(f) creating and building up adequate reserve funds, and

(g) such other matters which shall be for the future benefit of the building and its occupiers.

(2) The LVT in considering such applications shall have regard to provisions which may prevent the proper upkeep of the property and equity between the parties.
(3) Before serving notice on the tribunal, the RTM company shall give at least two months notice to all parties setting out the terms of variation, their reasons and intentions.
(4) Where the parties are in agreement, this shall be incorporated in the notice in order that the LVT can endorse the agreement.").
The noble Earl said: We now move on to the difficult and vexed question of variation of leases. Members of the Committee who have dealt with leasehold properties will know what a difficult area it is.
I am delighted that, for a change, I am able to do some of the Government's work for them. In their consultation paper, the Government pointed to the problems of the existing provisions with regard to leases, the difficulties that there were and the reasons why they should be changed. When we come to the Bill, there is nothing to take forward the thoughts that were in the consultation paper. I thought that I would do it for them. The Minister may, if he wishes, take my amendment away and have it drafted properly, but I hope that he will not destroy the arguments.
The problem comes where there is a legitimate ground for a variation of lease, because the lease is not specific or is contradictory. It prevents right-to-manage companies getting going and taking over the operation of their buildings. Most of us believe that that is a good thing and should be encouraged. There are far too many bad leases and old leases that do not make reference to the important issues facing landlords and tenants today. Yet one cannot get those leases changed. That is the nub of the problem.
My amendment sets out areas in which the leases, which might be defective or inadequate, can be changed for specific areas. That is taken to the local valuation tribunal. It is fair to both parties, it will continue to encourage the right-to-manage companies to proceed, it will bring the management of flats up to a better standard than is taking place at the moment and, above all, it will give parity to landlords and tenants. That is only to be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 240A. I am sorry. Am I interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart?
Lord Goodhart: My amendment comes first. I am sorry that I was not quick enough of the mark. Our Amendment No. 238YA applies to long leases of flats generally and not just to RTM companies. That is the distinct advantage of it as compared with Amendment No. 195.
CWH 200
It is based on the proposals in the Government's consultation paper of last August. Section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allows leases of flats to be varied by the court as they are unsatisfactory in particular respects. The consultation paper (Cm 4843) states in paragraph 5 on page 181 that,
"the grounds for an individual leaseholder of a flat to bring forward an application are narrow, and omit a number of important management-related matters".
The consultation paper goes on to discuss what those matters are. All the proposals in this amendment come directly from the Government's consultation paper.
Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 238YA transfers jurisdiction for variation from the court to the leasehold variation tribunal. That follows a Government proposal to transfer jurisdiction to the LVT to reduce the costs and duration of applications.
Section 35(2) of the 1987 Act sets out the grounds on which an application to vary may be made in a number of sub-paragraphs. Our amendment extends and clarifies these. The new subsection (2A) of Section 35 of the 1987 Act clarifies what is necessary to make repairing and maintenance obligations satisfactory. The new subsection (2B) modifies Section 35(2)(b) by requiring the entire building to be insured under a single policy to avoid problems which arise if each lessee insured separately, those problems already having been discussed in connection with an earlier group. I should say that in subsection (3A)(b) there is a misprint. It reads, "expenditures insured in respect of administration"; it should read, "expenditures incurred". New subsection (3A) clarifies the meaning of expenditure in the context of recovery of expenditure incurred in performing obligations under the lease for the benefit of other parties. New subsection (3B) makes it clear that a proper lease must include provision for payment in advance and interest on late payments. The amendment follows precisely the proposals set out on pages 180 to 184 of the consultation document. I should like to know why the Government have not included these proposals in the Bill. I invite them to do so now.
Amendment No. 240, which is grouped with Amendment No. 238YA, deals with a somewhat different issue. It would be better if I dealt with that in its proper place in the groupings list.
Lord Richard: I am not very often accused of being too fast, but on this occasion I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Amendment No. 240A follows very much on the lines of the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and those spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I do not propose to go through it in any detail as the thrust of it is clear. It is that variations should be made to the lease in circumstances in which it improves the management. It is an issue on which I believe the Government had envisaged legislating, but somehow, in the course of the drafting of the Bill and its introduction, it seems to have become lost. I hope the Minister can tell us today that he is minded to look at this point again.

CWH 201
It seems to be a fairly simple and attractive proposition that, if the lease inhibits proper management, in certain circumstances there should be a variation of the lease so that that management may be made more effective and more efficient. I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment any more than the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was wedded to his. I hope that the Minister will feel able to smile benevolently on the thrust of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can reassure all Members of the Committee who have spoken that we share their concerns. We believe there should be effective means to seek the variation of defective leases. There are already provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which allow for that to be done. We have always agreed that they are not entirely satisfactory. We consulted on proposals to improve them alongside the draft Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have proposed an amendment which is designed to enact these proposals. Indeed, Amendment No. 240A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard, is along the same lines. I can say straight away that we will consider the point and see whether it is possible to bring forward an amendment at Report stage to meet those concerns.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a parallel suggestion that we should grant rights to allow the RTM company to seek lease variations. This is not necessary, because paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 already allows the right-to-manage company to make use of the 1987 Act. Paragraph 10 states:
"Sections 35, 36, 38 and 39 of the 1987 Act (variation of long leases relating to flats) have effect as if references to a party to a long lease (apart from those in section 38(8)) included the RTM company".
It would not be right to grant the company additional rights in this respect which are not open to landlords or tenants. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, can be persuaded that the correct way to look at this issue is to make sure that the existing rights properly care for the needs of everyone, including the RTM company, and that he will be content to allow us to consider that matter further.
I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that he is not now raising the issue of service charge accounts, because that is a matter to which, if necessary, we can return later in the Bill. However, I can tell him now that, on this issue too, we shall consider what can be brought forward at Report stage. The same applies to his reference to the appointment of a manager regime. Amendments have been tabled that relate purely to that subject, which we are due to discuss when we reach Chapter 5. Perhaps we can discuss the whole issue then.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. He has covered many of the concerns. He has met my concerns and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Richard. I shall read with care what he has said.
CWH 202
I have to say that I am finding it much harder today to hear in this room than last time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is my defective voice rather than the address system, although that has been adjusted.
The Earl of Caithness: We always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and we listen with care to what he says. I have had difficulty in hearing what other noble Lords have said. I shall read with care what has been said and come back to this issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 109 to Ill agreed to.
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 197:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
QUALIFYING TENANTS SATISFYING RESIDENCE CONDITION
("—(1) Section 6 of the 1993 Act (qualifying tenants satisfying residence condition) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after "tenant" insert "or an adult member of his family".
(3) In subsection (3), omit the words following paragraph (b).
(4) After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) A body corporate shall be treated as satisfying the condition specified in subsection (2) if that condition would have been satisfied if any individual who is a member of the body corporate had been the tenant of the flat.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (2), references to any person being an adult member of another's family shall have the same meaning as in section 10.".").
The noble Lord said: I had intended not to move this amendment. However, it may be better if I move it formally and explain why I do not intend to bring back this matter at a later stage.
The original aim of the amendment was to keep the residence test for collective enfranchisement, but to make it easier to satisfy the test. I was concerned that this might be taken advantage of by speculators who had no real link with the property. I have been persuaded, however, that keeping a residence test is in fact undesirable. I am particularly grateful to the Leasehold Reform Professional Committee and others who have made submissions on this point.
The need for any residence test to be satisfied by more than half the tenants exercising that right is a serious barrier to collective enfranchisement. We support collective enfranchisement and wish to make it more easily available. I understand, particularly from the Leasehold Reform Professional Committee, that collective enfranchisement is not of interest to speculators, because they want a property interest that they can control, and out of which they can get very quickly if they so wish. The abolition of the residence test also eliminates problems with tenants who are corporate bodies and therefore cannot satisfy the residence test. Corporate tenancies have of course been used fairly frequently to frustrate the exercise by tenants of their statutory rights.
Therefore, I formally move the amendment, but I shall of course ask leave to withdraw it. I do not intend to bring back the amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: This amendment extends the definition of a qualifying residence to cover any adult member of a tenant's family, or an individual living in a flat on a lease held by a company. Broadly speaking, we can support the amendment. That may make the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, extremely worried.
In central London, there is still a demand for leases granted to named companies, especially offshore companies. It is reasonable that these leases should not be franchised, not least because many such companies operate outside the United Kingdom taxation laws. Where a lease was originally granted to a company and the assignment clause allows it to be assigned only to companies, that requirement should prevail as the original purchase price would have been agreed on that basis. However, if the assignment clause is silent, the lease should be treated as though it were a lease granted to an individual.
There is an argument that this would be inequitable towards the beneficiaries of the trusts, who will not be able to benefit from this. However, we take the view that trusts were established primarily for taxation reasons rather than property ownership. It might be thought desirable that trusts should, in fairness, benefit from this element of property law; but if it were thought so desirable, it should be accepted that they cannot benefit from the tax laws as well.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I note that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is raising a wider point in that respect. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not pursue the amendment and, indeed, for it to work it would have to be combined with several others. The amendment as proposed would still enable people who were members of a family and so forth to qualify under these provisions, whereas somewhere else they would be keeping the residence qualification.
The reality of the movement of flats is that flats change hands relatively frequently. Others are occupied in effect as second homes and others are sublet by their owners when they are away abroad or wherever for a length of time. These people are not really the kind of speculators and investors in terms of property companies on which the original concern was based. They are private owners and therefore should have some rights under this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Bach explained at Second Reading, we are preventing any person or a company holding leases on more than two flats in the block from participating in the collective enfranchisement proceedings. We will therefore exclude somebody who was attempting to acquire the whole block or part of the block for investment purposes rather than as a residential leaseholder. That should provide an adequate safeguard against acquisition of whole buildings by investors through the back door. We have probably met that point. There would be
CWH 204
understandable anxieties among leaseholders if the original intention were pursued, and I am grateful that the noble Lord is withdrawing this amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 [Non-residential premises]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 198:
Leave out Clause 112 and insert the following new Clause'—
NON-RESIDENTIAL PREMISES
("—(1) Section 4 of the 1993 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) omit "neither";

(b) for "residential" substitute "non-residential";

(c) for "nor (ii)" substitute "(ii) not";

(d) for "10 per cent" substitute "25 per cent".

(3) For subsection (2), substitute—
"(2) For the purpose of calculating the internal floor area of the premises, any part of the premises used as a garage or parking area or for storage shall be disregarded."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment may seem obscure on first reading. It is an attempt to deal 'with a point raised some time ago by my noble friend Lord Jacobs. As Section 4 of the 1993 Act states, there is no collective enfranchisement if the parts of the premises which are not occupied for residential purposes and not comprised in the common parts exceed 10 per cent of the floor area. Clause 112 increases that figure from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, and that is a change which we support.
My noble friend pointed out that commercial premises on the ground floor may often have basement storage areas underneath them, and that will make it more difficult to certify the not-more-than-25-per-cent test. The effect of our amendment is to exclude storage areas from the computation and, as a matter of balance, that would have to apply both to the commercial and non-commercial storage areas. We believe that on balance the amendment would make it a little easier to go ahead with the collective enfranchisement of a mixed-use unit. I beg to move.
Lord Jacobs: I am pleased to support this amendment. However, as often happens, when you keep studying these things you begin to see a few difficulties. Before the Government raise the difficulties, it must be remembered that, for example, there are units in London where the basement area is not storage, but is used as retail or restaurant premises and so on. There are two levels.
The principle exists. I believe that the Government's intention where there is a commercial ground floor—and, probably, basement—in relation to the number of residential floors above, is relevant. Therefore I would suggest that we should go further and extend the provision to basements, garages and outside storage areas. That would be satisfactory and if the Government could modify it—I think that that might be necessary—I am sure that it would he more effective.

CWH 205
We do not want the same situation that we had with the previous Bill, when it was impossible to find a building anywhere in London that could be enfranchised, so at least we are moving in the right direction.
Lord Kingsland: I am afraid that I am unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have reached this conclusion because, at a later stage, I shall oppose Clause 112 altogether.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained, the amendment would mean that garages, storage areas and parking spaces attached to residential dwellings would not be regarded as occupied for residential purposes. In my view the amendment seeks to distort the definition of non-residential parts to make it easier for mixed-use buildings to qualify for enfranchisement. Garages, storage areas or parking spaces are attached to particular dwellings. It cannot be argued that they compromise part of the building that is in non-residential use.
Lord Whitty: I believe that I am clearer about what the intention might be. I am not entirely sure, but there seems to be an internal contradiction here. If the areas are attached to the residential flats, they are part of the residential lease. If the aim is to make it easier for mixed dwellings to qualify—which, I presume it is—it could have the opposite effect. Garages and storage areas will frequently be attached to individual flats, particularly garages, and their exclusion from the calculation would go against the residential element of the building. I do not think that that was the intention, but it would be the result of the clause. It may be that there is more to the logic than I am currently following, in which case I apologise, but we may need to consider it again.
As explained by noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in certain circumstances the intention would not be achieved by the clause.
Lord Goodhart: We have discussed the point as much as is necessary and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 112 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: As Members of the Committee are aware, the clause seeks to raise the qualifying threshold of non-residential floor space that determines whether a mixed-use building can enfranchise from the current 10 per cent to 25 per cent.
Current legislation compels those who are able to enfranchise to buy the commercial element of the building. While we welcome the desire of residents for greater control over the management of their homes, we question whether they really want to take on the management of the commercial elements of the building. Commercial property management requires specialist skills, without which the value and marketability of the building as a whole may decline.
CWH 206
It is possible that the commercial element of the mixed-use building will be far more valuable than the residential freehold. Indeed, it might prove difficult for the residential leaseholders to raise sufficient funds to purchase the whole building, particularly with the higher threshold—though it may be that an enfranchising company arranges to finance the purchase by a back-to-back deal with a commercial end purchaser who would be willing to buy a lease on the commercial element.
As I suggested at Second Reading, there are already indications that investors and funders are resisting proposals to develop new mixed use buildings if they include less than 25 per cent non-residential use. They are concerned that the risk of enfranchisement means that the investment will not be certain or secure. This could have serious implications for the Government's ambitions to promote mixed use buildings, especially in regeneration areas.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Some Members of the Committee believe that this clause is an absolutely fundamental reform. There are certain difficulties about the number 25 but not in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicates. His proposition appears to be tantamount to saying that there should be a total exclusion zone for virtually every mixed block in the country. That may not be the position that is being advanced, but I cannot see a difference between that and this amendment.
Lord Whitty: I had thought that we were going to deal with the two amendments at the same time as we dealt with this, because they all address the same problem: how the enfranchisement process could operate in mixed use dwellings.
The clause provides for a 25 per cent instead of a 10 per cent threshold, which we believe is too low. That would unfairly prevent too many leaseholders from enfranchising. The 25 per cent leasehold will protect the landlord where the commercial unit is the majority interest in the building—we have already been over this ground at some length—in that a 25 per cent commercial content equals approximately half the value of the building to the landlord. However, where the leaseholders hold the majority interest and the commercial basis is less than 25 per cent, it is only right that those leaseholders should in all circumstances be able collectively to buy out the landlord.
The Government are aware of the suggestion that to raise the enfranchisement threshold could discourage some desirable mixed use development, which would be a cause for concern. However, it is not at all clear that that is likely to be the effect. The motivation for deleting this clause is different; it is to provide a means whereby the legitimate desire of several thousand leaseholders would be excluded from the Bill. That is not our intention, except in the limited circumstances where the residential element is of significantly less value to the landlord than half the value of the property.
Therefore, we do not wish to see this clause deleted. It would revert to the 10 per cent, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, suggests, means that almost every

CWH 207
leaseholder in a mixed use block would be excluded from the rights under the Bill. That would be a severe limitation on what is promised to leaseholders under the Bill. In certain circumstances there is some recognition of the landlord's rights by the 25 per cent figure, and to revert to 10 per cent would not be helpful.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am sad but not surprised to hear the observations of the Minister. However, if either Amendment, No. 199 or Amendment No. 222 finds favour with the Minister, at Report stage I shall not repeat my objection to Clause 112.
Clause 112 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 199:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
COUNTER-NOTICE AND LEASE
("—(1) In any property where there is a non-residential element, the landlord may serve a counter-notice.
(2) The landlord in such a case shall be obliged to offer a 999 year lease of all the residential areas to the RTE company.
(3) Notwithstanding such a lease, the RTE company will have full rights to manage the residential area.
(4) The 999 year lease shall include suitable mutually enforceable covenants which may be specified in regulations.").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Kingsland made some very good points in the debate on whether Clause 112 stand part about the difficulties of commercial and residential management in the same block. My concern is slightly different. I am perhaps a little more lenient towards the Government in accepting 25 per cent, but my real concern here is that it will act as a distinct disincentive to investment in mixed residential/commercial schemes. I go further and say that it would also act as a disincentive for development of those schemes which I know both parties have been keen to encourage. As a Minister, I remember that the government were keen to see mixed use development, and that has been continued by the present Government.
My solution, which I hope is acceptable, is the separation of management as between the residential and commercial sectors with mutual enforcing covenants and insurance between both parties. That does not stop the enfranchisement, except that the leaseholders would apply collectively for a 999-year lease and have the right to manage the residential parts. The owner of the development would retain the freehold of both the residential and commercial elements and the freeholder would be responsible for the management of the commercial element. That gives the effective separation that is necessary in managing blocks of this type, while allowing the tenants their right to enfranchise in the best possible way.
I hope that this commends itself to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, as I entirely take his point. I am trying to find a middle road so that we do not lose the investment and development markets for mixed use properties. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Our Amendment No. 222 is grouped with Amendment No. 199 and is not inconsistent with it. Broadly speaking, one has no objection to Amendment No. 199, although it is arguable that once one has a 999-year lease who holds the freehold and who holds the lease does not make an enormous difference.
Section 36 of the 1993 Act entitles the landlord to call for a 999-year leaseback of the unit comprised in the enfranchised premises which is not let to a qualifying tenant. It can, therefore, apply not only to commercial shop or office premises but also to a rented flat, which is directly rented and not the subject of an intervening long lease. Our new clause is a mirror image of that. It assumes that the RTE company which wants to enfranchise does not want to take on the shops, and that gives the RTE company the right to require the landlord to take a 999-year lease in the same way as the landlord can require a lease under the 1993 Act. Again, it seems to us that this right should operate both ways so that the RTE company can take on a property if it wants to without having to take on the parts of the property which it does not wish to manage or own.
Lord Lea of Crondall: This is an opportune moment to say that those of us who have been worried from the start about the difficulty of disentangling residential from non-residential parts are very appreciative of the efforts made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in putting forward the amendment, which is most ingenious.
The element to which I draw attention is that the RTE company would have full rights to manage the residential area. That has been thought to be very difficult in previous constructions because of a n umber of problems, including common parts. In this part of the Bill, which is to do with enfranchisement but concerns the right to manage, we would solve the problem by transferring the lease while still having the freeholder principle and the right to manage for the residential parts.
Is that how it would work? Am I correct in saying that we would still need to have some consequential discussions about the definition of common parts and where the 25 per cent cut-off applies? I take it that it would still apply. It has a good deal to commend it. I should be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister sees some merit in the amendment.
Lord Jacobs: I want to speak briefly to the noble Earl's amendment, which has much in its favour. If one wishes to improve the situation of leaseholders, I have always wondered why, instead of offering leases for 90 years or whatever, we do not offer 999 years. It has been my view that landlords rapidly lose interest in the property once the lease is effectively nearly 1000 years.

CWH 209
I also argued—unsuccessfully—with the previous government that in dealing with this matter one should separate the residential from the commercial. I was going to do it the other way round: give the commercial a 999-year lease and then subleases out. The tenants do not want to be involved with the commercial side if they can help it. The investment point that has been made is a very important one. We want to encourage mixed developments. This is an interesting solution.
Lord Whitty: We all recognise that this is a difficult area, and a certain amount of ingenuity has been applied by both the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Earl's amendment is effectively applying for those who are excluded—presumably as the result of a 25 per cent threshold—an alternative to enfranchisement. When served with a claim notice, the landlord would simply serve a counter notice offering a 999-year lease with the right to manage those parts and covenants to ensure that all the parties to the different part of the building contributed to the effective maintenance of the building as a whole.
I can see that that might work in certain circumstances, but I am not quite clear whether that is a mandatory alternative or an optional alternative to circumstances where the leaseholders would otherwise be excluded. If it is a mandatory alternative, which could spill over into areas where the leaseholders might be entitled, then that could represent a weakening of the leaseholders' rights and could enable the landlords to retain a substantial degree of management where the non-residential element was relatively small. This is not a perfect solution, but I do not have a better one at this stage. As the Committee will know, we have consulted widely and have received a number of proposals on this front. We ourselves are not yet in the position where we have an ideal solution to the problem.
As regards the noble Earl's point about discouragement of development, the essential point here is that we are all trying to find a way of converting existing properties into commonhold. When it comes to new development—even if it is the conversion of an existing building—presumably one is talking about a new structure of tenure entirely. We would hope that developers, seeing the new opportunity, would want to ensure that commonhold was built into the new building, or the newly converted building, in a way that mixed use properties as well as those that are solely residential could be carried out on a commonhold basis. I do not see that the exclusion discourages new development or conversion of existing conversion with re-negotiation of leases for existing premises. However, there remains a problem in relation to existing blocks. Our measures should not therefore discourage new developments.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would insert a new section into the 1993 Act, so as to deal with the concern that leaseholders may be unable to afford the cost of buying out the
CWH 210
landlord's interest where we are dealing with a very large, or significant, commercial element. He is seeking to do that by requiring the landlord to take a mandatory lease-back of the non-domestic part. In those circumstances, one would be tying the landlord's hands in the property in which he would otherwise cease to have a day-to-day interest. It is not really desirable or reasonable to force the landlord to take a leaseback in all such circumstances, just because the other leaseholders are not able to raise the money to fund the purchase.
The only equivalent that my advisers have been able to find is the mandatory leaseback provisions in the 1993 Act, which applies solely to social landlords. They are designed to ensure that, where there are renting tenants of social landlords, their immediate landlord and tenancy arrangements are not altered detrimentally as a result of enfranchisement. That deals with a rather different situation and a different kind of tenant. In this situation, however, it is difficult to have a mandatory requirement for the landlord to engage in a leaseback provision when faced with an application for enfranchisement.
What I am saying may appear to be negative to these particular solutions. It is not entirely negative, but the amendments do not give a complete solution. We are still looking at this area but it is unlikely that, in the course of the proceedings on the Bill, we will be able to come up with a satisfactory provision. As I said during the discussion on clause stand part, we wish to ensure that at least a significant proportion of those leaseholders within mixed use dwellings would have a right of enfranchisement. How we deal with the rest, none of us has yet satisfactorily addressed.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I am particularly grateful for the support that I received for my amendment. The reason I introduced development into my argument is that it is not requisite on a developer to build for commonhold. When we discussed Part I of the Bill, the option was still there for a developer to let the building as leases. That is why I mentioned the development aspect. It may be that the developer goes for commonhold, or it may be that he keeps it in the traditional form of leases that he has been used to all of his life. He may find that easier.
I was slightly disturbed when the Minister said that, although he was still looking at this problem, he did not believe that a solution was likely to arise during the passage of the Bill. We do not know how long we are going to be able to keep talking about the Bill, but something should be done during the passage of the Bill. We do not get many bites of the cherry of legislation, and this is an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tackled the problem one way; I am trying to tackle it another.
Some severe problems are building up. If one allows tenants to enfranchise where there is a high mixed-use value—25 per cent is a high percentage in my book—one has to think of all the consequences: the investment of the tenants trying to buy the units; the position of the landlord; and the commercial element.

CWH 211
It is not beyond our wit to devise a scheme which, although not perfect—nothing will be perfect in a situation like this—will encourage enfranchisement, will allow that to go forward in the best possible way and separate out the commercial element.
Obviously I must withdraw the amendment, but between now and the next stage—if there is to be a next stage—I would be happy to discuss the matter with the Minister and his advisers. However, I take issue with him that a solution is not likely; a solution must be found.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say that it would be useful to explore the matter further. I hope that the Minister will silently note the offer of many Members of the Committee to be party to a further discussion as to whether this ingenuous solution is relevant to the problem—even below the 25 per cent of people not wanting to be involved in the management of the commercial parts. That is a much more general solution to the Minister's problem than he has so far admitted.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 113 [Qualifying leases]:
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Premises with resident landlord]:
[Amendments Nos. 201 to 205 not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Abolition of residence condition]:
On Question, Whether Clause 116 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: The Bill proposes the abolition of the requirement that the qualifying tenant of a flat should have occupied the flat for the 12 months prior to the claim to enfranchise being made, or for three years in the previous 10.
Collective enfranchisement is a right given to the residents of the building. We believe that this link should be maintained. After all, we are talking about a form of compulsory purchase, and it is an important principle that buildings subject to this right are sold to the people who live in them, and will continue to be so.
We are not convinced that the existing law offers adequate protection against predatory purchasers. There needs to be a residence test in some form to prevent blocks being sold to profiteering investors. The long-standing concern has been that predatory purchasers would seek to put themselves in a position to purchase the freehold, using company vehicles to cover their tracks.
CWH 212
However, under the Bill as proposed, anyone buying a flat as an investment, using a buy-to-let mortgage for example, will qualify for enfranchisement. That means that the Bill gives one investor a right of compulsory purchase over another investor's investment and the means to enforce that right against the latter's will.
Our instinctive preference is for the leaseholder to be living in the flat at the time of the claim. However, we accept the arguments that have been put forward regarding expatriate workers and, to a lesser extent, those who have been unable to sell their flats for whatever reason. It is difficult to establish clear rules if one then introduces too many exceptions. This reinforces our belief in the need for a clear definition. At the very least there should be a requirement that any participating leaseholder should have held the lease for at least two years. This would coincide with the requirement proposed for lease extensions and the requirement that the lessee should have occupied the premises for at least 12 months during the course of his ownership—to ensure that this remains a right granted primarily to those who live in the properties, rather than to third party investors.
Taken to its extreme, the Government's proposal that the residence test should require at least half of the enfranchising group to occupy their flats as their only or principal dwelling on the date that the initial notice was served would produce bizarre results. For example, could an individual enfranchise if he moved in on the Monday, the notice was served on the Tuesday and he moved out on the Wednesday?
Finally, we are conscious that the Government are keen to harmonise the rules and procedures relating to enfranchisement for both houses and flats. It is therefore all the more important to retain the residence test for the enfranchisement of houses, so the principle must be maintained.
Lord Whitty: We dealt in part with the issue of retaining the residence qualification earlier. The deletion of this clause would effectively restore the residence qualification. I have indicated both now and earlier in the Bill that the requirement under Section 13(2) of the 1993 Act, which would be removed by this, has been shown to be a substantial obstacle to the enfranchisement under that Act. Many leasehold flats change hands frequently. Leaseholders may own a home in London which they retain while they are working abroad or elsewhere and sublet to members of their family or to others. They are in fact the owners of those flats, however, and they retain a similar right over those flats to the other leaseholders in all other attributes of law. If we are putting a residence requirement on them, as distinct from investors who are attempting to acquire the totality of the property, which was the original concern behind introducing a residence qualification, we are inevitably going to restrict the situations under which a right to enfranchisement would apply.
I referred earlier to the discussions at Second Reading, when it was clear that our procedures do not allow investors and speculators to take advantage of the enfranchisement proceedings. To try to define, as

CEH 213
the previous Act did, the situation where somebody is resident and therefore has rights and, as soon as they are no longer resident, (despite the fact that to all other intents and purposes they are carrying out the leasehold) they lose those rights, is a severe break on the process of enfranchisement. Certainly, there is evidence that under existing provisions that is the case. There is no reason for it to be different—in fact, it is more likely to be the case—when we are dealing with lots of flats under these provisions. We would therefore hope to retain that deletion and, therefore, retain Clause 116.
Lord Kingsland: As Members of the Committee will see from the Marshalled List, I had imagined that I would have the robust support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in my quest to delete the clause. So far they have not found voice. In anticipating the Report stage, it would have made a great deal of difference to me if I had had the support of the Liberal Democrat party.
Indeed, I feel rather as Sir Henry Newbolt declared in one of his most famous poems,
"The Gatling's jammed and the colonel's dead".
Your Lordships can make up your mind as between the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to which is the colonel and which is the Gatling.
I shall pay the closest possible attention to the Minister's speech. I put him on notice that I shall return to the matter on Report with as much vigour as is at my disposal.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [RTE companies]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 54, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may describe the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as the subaltern whose voice rallied the ranks and said,
"Play up, play up! and play the game!"
Amendment No. 205A stands in my name and I wish to speak also to Amendment Nos. 205C, 215A and 215B.
There has been a good deal of concern expressed during the passage of the Bill about the use of a corporate structure for commonhold associations, RTM companies and RTE companies. I think that in fact the corporate structure is necessary and correct, but we need a body which has legal personality, because without legal personality you cannot hold property, enter into contracts and so on. It would therefore be necessary in the absence of a corporation of this kind to have to hold property or enter into contracts through a nominee or trustees, which is not a satisfactory way of going about it.
It would, of course, have been possible to have created a new corporate body for the purposes exclusively of commonholds, RTM and RTE
CWH 214
companies, but that would have been an unnecessary complication. Companies limited by guarantee are the appropriate form of corporate structure for larger blocks, which need a formal structure, with memorandum and articles of association, directors, annual general meetings and so on, but this structure is too elaborate and bureaucratic for small blocks.
The Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 created a new form of corporate body; that is, the limited liability partnership. That is suitable for running a business where all the members of the LLP participate. It is simple in form with no directors, everybody takes part in the running of the business and there is a flexible agreement between the members instead of a memorandum and articles of association. That structure is potentially more suitable for small blocks of flats.
The amendment relates only to RTE companies, not to commonhold associations or RTM companies. The only reason for that is that I decided to table this group of amendments at a stage after we had already passed discussion of the commonhold associations and the structure of RTM companies. I thought that it would be useful, nevertheless, to raise the issue for debate now and, if necessary, to table an amendment at the Report stage not only for RTE companies but for commonhold associations and RTM companies.
Amendment No. 205C gives the option for the qualifying tenants in any block with not more than 10 flats to form an RTE, which is a limited liability partnership, rather than a company limited by guarantee. I have chosen 10 because that is the maximum number where it is reasonable to expect that all lessees could participate in the decision-making powers of the company. Perhaps even 10 is too many but, if you are looking at smaller blocks with perhaps four or five flats, it seems that an LLP would be much more appropriate than a company limited by guarantee.
Amendment No. 215B authorises the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form and content of a members' agreement before the LLP would take the place of a memorandum and articles.
I believe that LLPs are much more suitable for small groups wanting to exercise the rights of collective enfranchisement. These groups should be given the option to set up an LLP. I recognise that this may need some time to consider but, in the event of the Bill not getting through Parliament before dissolution, I would very much hope that the Government, if re-elected, would reconsider this before coming back with a revised Bill in due course. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: The amendment puts forward an interesting suggestion. Is the logic of 10 that, in the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, there is a concept of 10 partners? Can KPMG not be a limited liability partnership? What, exactly, is the logic of 10?
Lord Goodhart: Of course KPMG and many other organisations—solicitors firms and so on—have

CWH 215
hundreds of members and, in the case of some of the big accountancy firms, probably thousands, rather than 10.
The KPMG model is not the model for collective enfranchisement companies. The reason why they are partnerships which continue nominally as partnerships rather than companies as companies is a different matter, for both historical and tax reasons. It simply seemed to me that once you get beyond 10 you need the sort of management structures which are equivalent to those of having a board of directors of a company.
If one is looking at LLPs, as one normally should, as being a group of people who are all collectively involved in the running of the business, then 10 is perhaps a maximum number before you would need some kind of management or executive committee to handle the conduct of the business.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As Amendment No. 205B is in this group, perhaps I may speak briefly to that now. I view the issue of flexibility in much the same 'way as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but my wish is that we should have flexibility on the other side as well. I should like to explore the Government's thinking on why we have restriction to the company limited by guarantee.
I understand that this is the simplest of the corporate structures and, therefore, the easiest to understand. It is the right structure to have if you are seeking to encourage enfranchisement. That seems perfectly worthwhile. However, I am not sure why it has to be prescribed in that sense. There are, or could be, cases—how many I do not know—where the company limited by guarantee structure would not be appropriate. As I understand it, from the companies limited by guarantee with which I have had experience, they are of course restricted as to dividend and capital distribution. If you had an RTE company, a company limited by guarantee, which had a capital profit—perhaps by having done some extensions or some developments within the enfranchised block—the profit on that would not be able to be distributed to the participants. It could be defrayed and paid out over a period of years by reduction of charges, but it could not be paid out as a dividend or capital distribution. That seems to me to be an unnecessary inhibition on the operation of RTE companies. I am not saying that we should eliminate a company limited by guarantee; indeed, it is likely that most RTE companies will be of that form. However, there may be some which would like to have a more sophisticated, complex and demanding form of corporate structure—a company limited by shares—and I am not quite clear why they should not be able to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Last year the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I spent many happy hours debating the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill (as it then was). If he attends tomorrow morning we can debate the regulations which result from the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000. However, although I
CWH 216
am sympathetic to the idea of flexibility and reducing any difficulties arising from over-complex company legislation, I do not believe that this is the solution.
Section 2(1)(a) of the 2000 Act refers to,
"persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit",
which is not the intention of RTEs. Under paragraph 3.18 of the memorandum and articles they are allowed to carry on a trade which can, in the opinion of the board of directors, be advantageously carried on with. or ancillary to, any of the businesses of the company. but they do not really fall within the scope of limited liability partnerships, as the noble Lord and I understood the position to be when the legislation was passing through Parliament.
The limited liability partnership moves from an unlimited liability partnership rather than a limited company. It is designed to give a partnership limited liability while retaining responsibility for tax in the hands of the individual members rather than collectively in the company. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, now comes to it from the point of view of a company limited by guarantee. For that company the issue of tax does not arise. For RTEs it is expected that the issue of corporation tax will not arise, because, even if it made a surplus, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, it could be disposed of by reducing the charges either immediately or over a period of time rather than paying tax on the surplus or profits. I am willing to look at this again simply on the basis that my noble friend Lord Bach gave a similar undertaking when the issue was raised under commonhold. However, on the face of it, I do not believe that a limited liability partnership is an appropriate vehicle.
I turn to Amendment No. 205B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. This would allow the use of any limited company as an RTE company, so it would permit a wide range of options to be used. While some may see advantage in flexibility, it would make it more difficult to prescribe the constitution of the enfranchising body. It is important that we prescribe the constitution of the enfranchising body. not just to secure comparability but because smaller companies would be burdened if they had to make up their own constitution. The prescribed constitution makes life easier for leaseholders and ensures that the body is suitable for the purpose. Under the existing legislation there have been cases where leaseholders have run into difficulties, which were described by Members of the Committee at an earlier stage; for example, the corporate body used as a nominee purchaser may not be suitable. That is why we have adopted the more prescriptive approach.
I want to come back to the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It is worth saying that for most smaller blocks, compliance with the requirements of company law would not be particularly onerous. We would expect company formation agents to provide standard RTE companies off the shelf. A current review of company law is likely to lead to further simplification of the rules and reporting requirements for small companies. There are plans for measures to reduce the probability of

CWH 217
companies being struck off the register and, if that occurs, making it easier and cheaper for them to be restored.
I am not as worried as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, apparently is about the burden of forming a company and, subject to any further consideration we may have together, I do not believe his solution is the right one.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry the Minister gave certainly not as much as half a show of favour towards this amendment. He showed perhaps about one-tenth; a certain degree of sympathy only.
As regards the problem of limited liability partnerships being required to be businesses carried on with a view to profit, that difficulty would seem to be the main one and could be overcome by putting a clause in the Bill stating that an LLP company could be set up for these purposes, notwithstanding that it was not carried on with a view to profit. There is a prospect of real simplification here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Surely, the problem is that if one is going to have alternative corporate structure, we will lose the consistency between one RTE company and another. The basis of the Bill and of us saying that it is not too onerous a task to run a company limited by guarantee is that there is consistency between one and another. Everyone recognises what an RTE company is. If there are two kinds of corporate structure, we shall lose that.
Lord Goodhart: The problem with that is that there is an enormous difference between running a converted house which contains three flats and running a massive block which contains 300 flats. It is entirely suitable to have different structures, in the same way that an LLP has been created to give an alternative form of corporate structure for small businesses.
There seems to be a close parallel. There is an LLP for a small business, forgetting the KPMG because basically it will be used for small businesses. Most large commercial businesses will continue to use the ordinary corporate structure. There should be a similar simplified form of corporate structure available for three, four or five-flat buildings, which may be inappropriate for a much larger building where something more bureaucratic is required.
As regards what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I would not support the idea of a company limited by shares. That is probably rather difficult to reconcile with the philosophy behind having an RTE company, and in any event, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was wrong in suggesting that a company limited by guarantee cannot distribute its profits or capital payments. The situation is that most companies limited by guarantee are, in fact, charities or other non-profit companies which are limited by their own memorandum and articles in distributing profit. There is nothing inherent in the guaranteed company rules that makes it impossible to do so.
CWH 218
Having said that, this is something we may well want to look at again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 205B and 205C not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 54, line 24, leave out ("is already") and insert ("which is").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 206, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 208 and 214. The first two amendments will allow more than one RTE company to exist for the same premises, provided that none has served a notice under Section 13 of the 1993 Act to initiate the enfranchisement process. Where a Section 13 notice has been served, only the company which served that notice can thereafter be considered an RTE company for the premises for as long as that notice remains in force.
The reasons for allowing the RTE company for the early stages in the enfranchisement process may vary. The most obvious is that the leaseholders might wish to do so because their existing RTE company is also an RTM company and they have now decided that they do not want to lose the right to manage by enfranchising through that company, and therefore wish to establish a new RTE company. It will not, however, be possible to have competing enfranchisement bids going on for the same property at the same time.
Amendment No. 214 changes the provisions which allow personal representatives of someone who was a participating member to themselves become participating members. We need to allow them to become participating members after the cut-off point which would otherwise apply, because they could otherwise inherit a liability to pay towards the enfranchisement price without being able to be part of the collective ownership of the freehold.
The Bill as it stands provides that personal representatives would become participating members unless they opted not to do so. That could lead to their being bound by certain obligations without having agreed to them. We now consider it better that they should be able to opt in and thereby formally agree to be bound by the obligations. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 are wrongly marshalled. The next amendment I shall call will be Amendment No. 208. That should not affect the procedures of the Committee.
I gave the Committee warning that the Minister had spoken to Amendment No. 208. It is only now that I have become aware of the instructions that these two subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 207 and 208, have been wrongly marshalled. They should be in separate order. We are still dealing with Amendment

CWH 219
No. 206 until the Committee decides otherwise. Does the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wish to speak to Amendment No. 206?
Lord Goodhart: No.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitly Lord Whitly moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 54, line 28, at end insert—
("has given a notice under section 13 with respect to the premises, or any premises containing or contained in the premises, and the notice continues in force in accordance with subsection (11) of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 54, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) A company which is a RTM company may not become a RTE company except by a resolution passed with the affirmative vote or written consent of all its members.
(4) In this Part, "RTM company" has the same meaning as in Chapter I of Part III of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2001.").
The noble Lord said: I think I have at last sorted out what has been happening. We have dealt earlier, and again in the last couple of amendments, with amendments which the Government have accepted which will enable RTM and RTE companies to coexist in the same property. So a person who is a member of art RTM company does not have to choose between giving up his role in management and taking part in a collective enfranchisement process which will cost money that he does not want to spend or cannot find.
Amendment No. 207 introduces what we believe is a necessary corollary, that an RTM company cannot convert to an RTE company unless there is unanimous agreement among its members. If you start with an RTE company which includes a member who does not wish to take part in collective enfranchisement, and if that company is able to convert itself without his or her consent into an RTE company, that member would still have to opt out of that company. That member would thereby lose the right to participate in management if he or she did not wish to go ahead and take part in the enfranchisement, with all the financial implications that involves.
These are companies with different objectives. The principle, which has been accepted by the Government, that you can separate an RTM and RTE company requires this additional amendment if it is to be fully effective.
Amendments Nos. 209 and 210, which have been included in this group, refer to ground that has already been covered; that is, the exclusion of the landlord from the membership of an RTM company. I shall not repeat the arguments that were made earlier.
I intend to support strongly Amendment No. 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Indeed, I am inclined to feel that it does not go far enough. I hope to ex plain why at a later stage rather than speaking to it now. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Amendment No. 211 is grouped with this amendment. I, too, am concerned
CWH 220
about the situation where somebody who is a member of the right-to-manage company and has been doing an excellent job does not, for whatever reason—it may be financial—become part of the RTE company. For those of us with experience of managing and controlling blocks of flats, to lose someone who is doing a good job and understands the block, because he cannot participate in the management if he is not a member of the RTE company seems a perverse way of tackling the situation. There must be some method by which those people who are not members of the RTE company can, if they so wish and the RTE company so wish, be used in the management of that company.
I have put forward the idea of having two classes of shares, for instance: one for those who are members of the RTE company, and a separate class of shares for those who are not members of the RTE company but are within the block and could take part in the management of that company. Good people who understand property management are few and far between. To exclude them, as the Bill does in subsection (4) of Clause 118, is rather a perverse way of tackling this problem.
My Amendment No. 211, which seeks to exclude the whole of subsection (4), does not, admittedly, give the complete solution, but I hope that the Minister will give this matter some thought.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for supporting my Amendment No. 212, which seeks to increase the period of time for someone who acquires a lease from a participating member of the RTE company to indicate their own desire as to whether they wish to participate from 14 to 28 days.
It is with some trepidation that I have to in form the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I am unable to support his Amendments Nos. 209 and 210. That is disappointing, but I shall attempt to change his mind by explaining why.
It seems to me that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would exclude landlords on any leases within a building from being members of an RTM company if the company was also the RTE company for the building. We believe that the landlord must always be entitled to membership of an RTM company which manages a building in which he retains an interest.
We recognise the problems which may arise if the leaseholders within a RTM company wish to enfranchise. Understandably, they would not wish the landlord to be a party to their discussions. In these circumstances, they should accept that, however awkward, it would be better to establish a separate RTE company. If they wish to use the same company to be both RTM and RTE they must accept the continuing presence of the landlord.
If the enfranchisement takes place in amicable circumstances it may well be that the landlord voluntarily agrees to absent himself from the RTE company's discussions. If the situation is not amicable, there is a greater likelihood that a separate company would be more suitable anyway.

CWH 221
As far as concerns Amendment No. 214 tabled by the Minister, our Amendment No. 213 is to similar effect. We are content with the Minister's efforts.
Lord Goodhart: I support Amendment No. 212 but take the view that it does not go far enough for the following reason. I did not appreciate the problem until I started looking at the memorandum and articles of the RTE company, by which time it was too late to table an amendment of my own.
The problem is that in the case of an RTE company membership is not transferable, but anyone who ceases to satisfy the requirements of membership—namely, that he is a qualifying tenant—automatically ceases to be a member of the company. Therefore, when somebody sells the leasehold of a flat he or she will not automatically be entitled to transfer membership of the company. The next stage is that the person who is the purchaser is entitled to become a member of the company under new Section 4B(6) of the 1993 Act, the provisions of which appear at lines 15 to 19 on page 55. That fits together, but the essential stage for the new leaseholder to become a member of the RTE company is the giving of notice under new subsection (6).
It is likely that the assets of the RTE company will be of considerable value—they will include the freehold—and no doubt that value will be reflected in the price which the assignee has paid for the lease. It is essential, therefore, that in order to protect his interest the assignee should apply for a participating notice to the company within 14 days. That is a very short time. If he does not do so, he loses a valuable asset and gives a windfall to the other members of the RTE company. The consequences of that are quite unintended and wholly unfortunate, but there is no way in which the time can be extended if the assignee fails to give that participation notice to the company within the 14 days after the assignment. That can be overlooked.
Under new Section 4B(7), personal representatives become participating members unless they give a notice within 56 days stating that they do not wish to be a participating member. It would be much better if the same rule applied to an assignee, so that an assignee who is negligent—or whose adviser was negligent—and fails to give the participation notice within 14 days does not lose the right to share in a valuable asset for which he has almost certainly paid as part of the price he paid for the flat.
This is a point of some significance—admittedly, in a sense, a detail. However, it is plainly right that it should be reversed so that the assignee becomes a member automatically, unless and until he gives—as he occasionally might wish to do—a notice saying that he does not wish to be a member of the RTE company.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal with the amendments in as much order as I can put them in, starting with Amendment No. 207. I shall then turn to Amendment No. 211 standing in the name of the noble
CWH 222
Earl, Lord Caithness. I appreciate the concern about members of an RTM company who do not participate in a subsequent enfranchisement. The Bill provides that any such leaseholders will cease to be members of the company on completion of the enfranchisement. That is because, after enfranchisement, there might be conflicts of interest between those leaseholders who did or did not participate in enfranchisement. There might be differences of view between them about how the proceeds of the sales of leases should be used or distributed. If the non-participants were still members of the company, the company directors would find themselves in a very difficult position as a result of their accountability to the entire membership.
We have tackled this matter in a different way already. Amendment No. 99, which was agreed earlier, would remove the bar on there being separate RTM and RTE companies for the same premises. That means that, where the RTM has been exercised, and a proportion of members wishes to proceed to enfranchisement, they would now be able to set up a separate RTE company for that purpose, and non-participants would be able to continue to participate in the management of the building. Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 have already been debated. There is nothing more I should say about them.
I shall respond, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on Amendment No. 212 as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made quite different points on it. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that we should extend the period from 14 to 28 days for assignees to make up their minds about whether to participate in an enfranchisement bid. However, there are two difficulties with that. First, it could be inconvenient for the other members in learning whether or not the assignee was going to participate. Secondly, surely a prospective assignee would have been made aware of the pending enfranchisement bid. Indeed, that might have influenced his decision to buy. I should have thought that in many cases the decision to take part would not even be a 14-day decision but would be taken before the 14 days started. In other words, it would be an instantaneous decision.
I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, too complicated to respond to at this time. All I can do is undertake to write to him on the basis of what he has said. Amendment No. 213, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is not necessary. We have just agreed in advance to Amendment No. 214, which solves the problem.
On Amendment No. 214A, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that leaseholders who agree to become participating members should not be able to walk away later and avoid their liabilities. Article 11 of the draft articles of association, which we have made, would prevent participating members from resigning. The Bill already provides that, on becoming a participating member, a qualifying tenant becomes jointly and severally liable for the landlord's costs relating to the enfranchisement, and that liability cannot be avoided

CWH 223
by withdrawal from membership. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on that point.
Lord Good.hart: I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted our position on Amendment No. 207. It is a matter to which we may well have to return at Report stage. On Amendment No. 212, I cannot express a view at the moment, because I shall await with interest to see what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, writes in his letter to me. If that is not appropriate, we shall bring forward a new amendment to cover that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209 to 213 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 55, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert ("if, at any time, they give a participation notice to the company.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 214A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 55, leave out lines 29 to 35.
The noble Lord said: These are tidying-up amendments. In rising to move Amendment No. 215, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 218 and 221. These amendments delete powers that would otherwise be granted under the Bill to specify in regulations the form and content of three notices that are part of the enfranchisement process—the notice of invitation to participate, the participation notice and the initial notice to commence the enfranchisement process. There is already a general power under the 1993 Act to make regulations on the form and content of any enfranchisement notice, and the specific powers, which are on the face of the Bill, are unnecessary duplications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215A and 215B not moved.]
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 119 [Invitation to participate]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 56, line 26, after ("company") insert (", or qualifying tenants intending to form and become participating members of a RTE company,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 216, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 217 and 219. These cover two short points. Amendments Nos. 216 and 219 seek to allow people who want to form an RTE company but who are not sure if they will get enough support to make it viable to serve an invitation to participate before forming the company. They will therefore avoid the costs of formation if they do not get enough support.
Amendment No. 217 covers another short point. The estimate of the costs involved in collective enfranchisement is completely unpredictable. It therefore seems pointless and probably misleading to include it. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Amendment No. 217A is part of this group. Perhaps I can speak to the amendment at
CWH 224
this stage. The amendment would permit the RTE company not to include details of the proposed price and estimated costs in notices of invitation to participate that are served on those flats where the qualifying tenant would be the freeholder. I do not think that one could reasonably expect any party to a negotiation to be required to reveal its position to the other party except in its own time and in the manner of its own choosing. The amendment would make that positional point.
For the benefit of all members of the Committee who have the British Property Federation brief. which has been quoted in extenso during the course of the afternoon, I am happy to say that it supports the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and Amendment No. 216 standing in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart. However, I am not inclined to support Amendment No. 217, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Under the present legislation, the enfranchising leaseholders are responsible for meeting the landlord's reasonable costs in dealing with an enfranchisement. If the costs are thought to be unreasonable they may be challenged in the leasehold valuation tribunal. It is unfair to expect someone who is subject to a compulsory purchase procedure to bear his own costs incurred as a result of someone else exercising the right. If a leaseholder is invited to participate in an enfranchisement, it is only fair that he is aware of the full cost that may be involved.
Lord Whitty: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would in effect remove the obligation on those who are proposing to establish an RTE company to serve notices without having first established that company. The Bill requires that all the formal steps in the enfranchisement process are carried out by an RTE company. We consider that to be the simplest approach.
Clearly, in the pre-consideration of whether one goes to an RTE company, we would expect leaseholders who are contemplating moving to enfranchisement to try to sound out their neighbours on a more informal basis to see whether there 'was sufficient support before they started incurring the expenses of formal proceedings, including the cost of setting up the RTE company itself. So there is an informal stage of consultation with the potential participants that would not be covered by this restriction. There is certainly nothing in the Bill to prevent such an informal process taking place.
I appreciate that even al the point where the RTE company is formed it may be difficult to assess the likely costs of the transactions in advance. There is a risk that an over-pessimistic estimate may discourage participants, and presumably vice versa. However, potential participants are at that stage being formally asked to accept a binding obligation to pay those costs. It is only fair and reasonable that they should have an

CWH 225
idea of what they are letting themselves in for at that point. I therefore wish to resist, subject to the qualification on the informal procedures, the implications of the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Amendment No. 217A, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard, reflects a concern that leaseholders should not have to disclose their proposed bid to the landlord—to the reversioner—in notice of the invitation to participate. It would mean that they would not need to give it to the landlord—the reversioner—if he was also a qualifying tenant. However, that situation would not arise by definition. If the owner of the freehold of a building acquired a leasehold interest in that building, or indeed vice versa, the two interests merge by operation of the law, so that the freehold owner is not a qualifying tenant.
Although the landowner may be occupying a flat equivalent to those of the other leaseholders, he will not be a qualifying tenant in those circumstances and therefore will not be required to receive a notice of intention and an invitation to participate, with an indication of the costs. Therefore disclosure of one's negotiating hand could not take place by stealth in those circumstances.
It would obviously be necessary for us to give guidance to clarify this position, but, as I understand it, the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is understandably concerned about could not arise.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry that the Minister has not been more helpful. But these are minor points; we shall look at them again and consider what action to take. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 217A:
Page 56, line 43, at end insert ("save where the qualifying tenant of the flat is the reversioner").
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move the amendment. I heard what my noble friend the Minister said but I do not profess that I understood what he said. Will he be kind enough to write to me, setting out the law on which he bases his opinion?
Lord Whitty: I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Richard: In that case, I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 217A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 56, line 45, leave out from ("company") to end of line 7 on page 57.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Enfranchisements by company: amendments
]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 84, line 7, leave out from ("company:"") to end of line 10.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Clause 122 [Valuation date]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 57, line 21, leave out from ("payable),") to end of line 22 and insert ("in paragraph 1(1), for the definition of "the valuation date" insert—
""the valuation date" means the date of service of the reversioner's counter-notice."").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would fix the valuation date as the date of the landlord's counter-notice, rather than the date of the service of the claim notice. We support the proposal to fix the valuation date; however, we feel that it would be more appropriate for it to be fixed at the date of the landlord's counter-notice as this is the point at which the second party engages in the process.
Under standard compulsory purchase procedures, the valuation date is the day the deal is actually concluded. The amendment is part of a package intended to give the landlord a greater sense of security during the period over which his investment is being compulsorily purchased.
Also in this group is Amendment No. 223A, which would incorporate into the purchase price interest at the current bank base rate on the valuation figure. The Government's proposals have been framed on the assumption that landlords are more likely to delay the process than leaseholders. There is consequentially minimal protection for the freeholder against an enfranchising group that seeks to exploit the system.
If the valuation date is fixed at the date of the claim notice, it will be in the interests of leaseholders to delay the conclusion of the deal as the price they pay will not change, however rapidly the market rises. Meanwhile the landlord would stand to receive a lesser price than the market value on the date of the actual transaction.
We believe that the only way to discourage delay and ensure that leaseholders are encouraged to conclude the deal as quickly as possible is to provide for interest to be included.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: There is much to commend my noble friend's amendment. Clearly, a speedy completion of transactions is important and nothing is more likely to concentrate the mind than interest clocking up. I would ask for one point of

CWH 227
clarification: does this mean that income arising on the property during the period between valuation and completion will accrue to the purchasers? Equity would mean that it should be operated in that way, in which case it seems an extremely good amendment and I support it.
Lord Whitty: The reason we have fixed the valuation date for the collective enfranchisement of flats at the date of the initial notice is to provide a degree of certainty and consistency. There has been a longstanding approach to leasehold houses under the 1967 Act, which fixes the date from the valuation date. We would, therefore, need substantial arguments to shift from that long established position.
If we adopted the date of the counter-notice, as suggested by the noble Lord, we would normally expect the landlord to serve that pretty soon after the service of an initial notice. We would wish to encourage him to do so, otherwise a degree of delay is induced from that side. If the landlord issues a counter-notice rapidly, the difference in the price from one date to another is likely to be minimal. If the landlord delays serving a counter-notice, thereby gaining an advantage at a time of rapidly increasing property values in that area, it will in itself be a disincentive and a penalty on the leaseholder seeking enfranchisement.
We would not wish to encourage such behaviour. In a rapidly rising property market, landlords could be disadvantaged as a result of the price being determined at the basis of prevailing values on the date of the initial notice and with money received at a much later date. However, it cannot be fair to provide a right to payment in terms of interest on the purchase price between the date used to determine the price and the date of completion.
That is apparently not appropriate in other areas of property law and any disadvantage to the landlord would depend on a hypothetical movement in the property prices. If property prices are going down, there will be no disadvantage at all and having a prescribed mandatory interest payment would be quite illogical in those circumstances.
The solution to all of this would be to speed up the process of enfranchisement as quickly as possible. The measures in the Bill are intended to reduce procedural delay, to reduce disputes over the price payable and, where disagreement exists, to speed up the disputes resolution process. To some extent, the first of these amendments provides a temptation to drag the process out. It also departs from the provisions in the 1967 Act as regards the due date. I therefore hope that this amendment is not pursued.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. I am not surprised to hear it; but equally he will riot be surprised to hear that I shall press this matter at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 122 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 223:
After Clause 122, insert the following newclause—
ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE VALUES
("In Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act, omit—

(a) paragraph 2(1)(b);

(b) paragraph 4;

(c) paragraph 5A(2)(b):

(d) paragraph 5C;

(e) paragraphs 9 and 9A;

(f) paragraph 10(1)(b);

(g) paragraph 12:

(h) paragraphs 15 and 16; and

(i) paragraphs 19 and 20.").

The noble Lord said: In addition to Amendment No. 223, I wish to speak to Clause 123 stand part. Clause 124 stand part, Amendment No. 228, Clauses 131 and 132 stand part—1 32 is not in fact in the list, although it should be—and Amendment No. 231. The other amendments in this group are not moved by us. I do not know whether the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland, believes that as they deal with an entirely different aspect of marriage value they should be taken out and dealt with immediately following in a separate group.
Marriage value arises because the value of a lease and the value of a reversion, if sold separately, is usually less than the value of the same property if sold with vacant possession. Therefore, the merger of the lease and of the reversion produces a boost in value which is known as the marriage value. In the case of the purchase of a freehold by a sitting tenant, another element of marriage value is the fact that the occupying tenant may be willing to pay more than the market value for the reversion in order to avoid the loss of his or her home and the stress of a forced move.
In the case of the enfranchisement of a house, unless it falls into the higher rateable value, the freehold is valued on the assumption that the tenant is not in the market as a purchaser. That means that the valuation of the freehold is made only on the basis that it is being sold as an investment. The marriage value is therefore excluded from the price the tenant has to pay for enfranchisement. That is covered by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Section 9(1), as amended by the Housing Act 1969. In all other circumstances, however, the marriage value has to be taken into account.
The amendments in this group propose that the marriage value should be disregarded. The calculation of the higher rateable value houses, those with rateable value on 31st March 1990, when rating came to an end, in excess of £1,000 in London and £500 elsewhere, is set out in Section 9(1)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which was added by the Housing Act 1974. That valuation does not exclude the tenant as purchaser. We intend that the tenant should be so excluded by Amendment No. 231. This requires the assumed exclusion of the tenant as a potential buyer. The words

CWH 229
used are identical to those which exclude the tenant in the valuation under Section 9(1) of the 1967 Act in the case of lower rateable value houses.
In the case of collective enfranchisement, married value is a more difficult computation. The marriage value arises not from a straightforward merger, because there is none, but from the assumption that those who enfranchise can grant themselves leases over the very long term to take effect on termination of their present leases at a nominal ground rent.
The rules for calculation are set out in Schedule 6 to the Leasehold Reform Act 1993. The basic valuation is based on the value of the freehold, subject to all existing leases, but paragraph 4 specifically requires the managed value to be taken into account. I shall not try to explain the basis of computation which, according to the principal textbook on the subject, is both complex and uncertain. Amendment No. 223 removes all reference to marriage value from the valuation process under Schedule 6. It is coupled with our objection to Clauses 123 and 124 of the Bill, that being purely consequential on the abolition of marriage value. If marriage value is to be retained, we would support both those clauses as reducing the amount of the marriage value, and simplifying its computation.
Finally, we come to marriage value in relation to the grant of extended leases. The payment by a tenant is calculated under Schedule 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The basic price to be paid is the diminution of the value of the landlord's interest because of the grant of a new lease. That is fair enough as a method of calculation.
But then Schedule 13 adds the concept of marriage value. This is a wholly artificial concept in that context. There is no marriage at all. Indeed, the effect of the grant of the new lease, or the extended lease, is to delay the marriage for a considerable time.
Marriage value in this context is based on the assumption, to simplify matters, that the value of a tenant's interest may be increased by an amount greater than the reduction in the landlord's interest. That bonus—if one can call it that—has to be split between the landlord and the tenant.
Our Amendment No. 228 removes the marriage value from the computation under Schedule 13, and again Clauses 131 and 132 stand part are consequential.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.47 to 6.56 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee is debating Amendment No. 223 after Clause 122.
Lord Goodhart: I shall not detain the Committee much longer. I had just explained how marriage value was calculated in various different contexts and the effect of the amendment which is to remove it. We
CWH 230
believe that marriage value should go: it is complicated and unfair. We believe that the landlord is adequately compensated by being paid the market value of the property that he loses as a result of the enfranchisement, or the extended lease, without increasing what he receives by taking into account the position of the tenant as a prospective special purchaser. This is particularly so in relation to extended leases where the concept of marriage value is an artificial absurdity. Even with the modest simplification proposed by the Government, the computation of marriage value will add to the expense and time of working out the terms of enfranchisement, or the price of an extended lease.
I originally had some concern about the question whether the price of the extended lease should exclude marriage value only where the lessee was in occupation, because in that case the lessee is not a special tenant, or not to the same extent. However, we believe that the concept of marriage value in the context of an extended lease is completely unreal and that the Government's proposed two-year ownership requirement before an extended lease can be granted is adequate to deter speculators. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Amendment No. 234C in this group does not address the point just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but seeks to deal with leases on houses and flats, which, as I understand it, have differential treatment under the proposed legislation. As I understand it, in Clause 123 we have agreed the 50 per cent share of marriage value. However, if I read it correctly, the clause applies only to flats and gives leaseholders a guaranteed 50 per cent of the marriage value. However, that does not apply to houses. My amendment is designed to bring houses into the same position as under the 1967 Act, as amended by the 1993 Act, which is that the share of marriage value to the tenant shall not exceed one-half. In other words, it could be a maximum of one-half. My amendment is intended to make it one-half, and therefore brings house leaseholders into the same position of 50-50 share as flat leaseholders.
The Earl of Caithness: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment No. 234C. That is a logical and practical way forward.
I now turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I was sad to see it on the Marshalled List. For much of the discussion in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I have not been that far adrift, but we go down very different paths when it comes to marriage value.
Marriage value is an accepted part of the property scene. All those involved know exactly what it means. It is an integral part of the whole of this exercise. If marriage values were to be abolished, the attitude towards the Bill would change. The comments that I have made are based on the assumption that there is a marriage value. If there is not a marriage value, it is a totally different Bill. The amendment of the noble

CWH 231
Lord, Lord Goodhart, drives a coach and horses through the principles on which we have discussed this legislation.
I hope that the Minister will have absolutely no truck with this amendment for the reasons I have given. It would be a retrograde step and any good will that has been engendered, and the effort people have made to come to compromises to try and seek a way forward, would be dissipated in one fell swoop.
Lord Monson: I was waiting to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but he has not moved them yet. I support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, some of which are alternatives. He said earlier that it was a human rights issue. I do not know whether he was referring to this matter in particular, but I am sure he is right.
As I said on the first day of Committee, neither I nor my family has any axe to grind at all on behalf of the freeholders. Indeed, a number of members of my extended family have done very well out of leasehold reform over the past 33 years. Surely there must be some limit to the continuing enforced transfer of value from the freeholder to the leaseholder. Not all freeholders are rich individuals. Some are charities upon whose good work tens of thousands of individuals depend every year. And not all leaseholders are of modest means. If they live in Belgravia, Chelsea, Kensington, Mayfair, Hampstead, and other parts of London, they are probably extremely rich. We are no longer talking about people of modest means in South Wales with whom the 1967 Act was designed to deal. It is a question of fairness, and certainly the Liberal Democrat amendment, and indeed the Bill as it stands, goes too far in a Robin Hood direction, as it were, of taking money from the freeholder and giving to the leaseholder.
Lord Kingsland: On the general issue of marriage value, I share entirely the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
On the specific issues which my amendments seek to address, I would have been perfectly content had the Government remained with the solution contained in their consultation document: above the 90-year barrier, no marriage value applied or the marriage value was "nil". The Government have now changed their position and we find in the Bill a term of 80 years.
Outside London, above 80 years marriage value is, indeed, treated by most leasehold valuation tribunals as nil. The situation in London, however, as the Minister well knows from the close attention he will have paid to the statistics, is quite different. It is clear beyond per adventure that marriage value does indeed exist above 80 years. I would urge the noble Lord the Minister, therefore, to return to the solution that the Government. were inclined to adopt at the time of the consultation document.
Lord Jacobs: I support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It was interesting that the noble
CWH 232
Earl, Lord Caithness, said that if the amendment were to be accepted, the attitudes towards the Bill would change. I agree that they would change greatly. There are 2 million leaseholders out there who are disappointed with the Bill because although it is good in a number of very important respects it completely misses the point in terms of the marriage value. The proposal to exclude 80 years and upwards shows some recognition that marriage value is an issue but it should not automatically be accepted that because it was in the previous government's 1993 Bill it should be continued.
I shall deal first with the question of why marriage value should be excluded. The key question is to whom it rightfully belongs. In the first place, the evidence is overwhelming: that it does not in any circumstances belong to the freeholder. The 1967 Act correctly provided that no share of marriage value should be given to the freeholder. The Duke of Westminster took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in 1986. He lost his case. The European Court said that if he were paid the correctly calculated value of his freehold, that was all he was entitled to.
Lord Monson: Could the noble Lord say whether the decision by the European Court was unanimous? Was it not a majority decision and not a large majority at that?
Lord Jacobs: On the basis that those who ask questions usually know the answer in advance, I shall assume that it was quite likely—and I do not know—that it was only a majority decision. Being found not guilty on a majority decision, however, would always seem to be good enough.
The question is then to whom the marriage value belongs. If a tenant had been a leaseholder from the original grant of a lease, he would be entitled to full marriage value. However, those circumstances very seldom arise and there are in reality generally numerous predecessors in title who would rightly be entitled to a share of the marriage value. It would obviously be difficult, if not impossible, to share out the marriage value between all the previous tenants as well as the enfranchising tenant.
Moreover, the marriage value would not be cashable until the property was sold. I would mention that one of the great arguments—and here I have some sympathy with the 1967 Act—is about all the tenants who were able to buy their freeholds effectively and who remained in their properties. The fact that they did not pay marriage value was fine because they probably did not have the cash to do so. However, some immediately thereafter—often within days of enfranchising—sold their property and thereby caused a great deal of concern.
It is understandable for the landlord to object that the property has all gone to them. On the other hand, if marriage value had been in, as it is in the present Act, all the tenants who have remained in their property for many years would have to find the cash not only to buy the freeholder's interest—the reversionary interest—but also 50 per cent of the marriage value. It is clearly a

CWH 233
contentious point, but there is a strong argument that marriage value should no longer be included. One would agree that the basis of compensation payable to the landlord should accord with the provisions of the 1967 Act. I could have argued strongly with the previous government about the failure to abolish marriage value, but I find the Labour Government's position almost incomprehensible.
In the other place the Labour Member for Cleethorpes, Shona McIsaac, tabled a Private Member's Bill. That progressed but did not come to fruition. She had consultations with Ministers. In August of last year she wrote to me to say that, following consultations, she was confident that many of her suggestions would be adopted and government Ministers were very considerate towards her ideas. In her letter she wrote:
"I want leasehold as a means of housing tenure scrapped totally".
However, she said that if that did not happen—she thought that that was a possibility—at least she would ensure that the "special valuation basis" and "marriage value" as a way of calculating freehold purchase price were abolished. She went on:
"It is this which leads to vastly inflated sums of money being demanded by landowners and landlords".
One can say many more things about this subject. I know that we are trying to progress the Bill fairly rapidly and I shall confine myself to one further remark. The Minister in the other place, Nick Raynsford, replied to a constituent who had written to him in 1995 on the question of marriage value. In his letter he said:
"As you will have seen from the newspapers, we are suggesting that the concept of marriage value should be removed from the legislation. This would clearly help those seeking enfranchisement but also should have a benefit for leaseholders merely seeking to extend their lease".
I end on that point. I have maintained for more than three years that the Government's intention was to make it as easy as possible for tenants to acquire their freeholds or commonhold, or at least to be enfranchised. I remain of the opinion that somewhere along the line there was a change in their decision-making. We should not overlook the fact that, although this matter is contested, they recognise that marriage value is a serious issue. At least they have opened the door by saying that for anything above 80 years marriage value should be excluded from the calculation. That will be a good thing, and I know that tenants will welcome it. But at 79 years one is back to 50 per cent. It may be that in another amendment at another time some adjustment should be made, if the abolition of marriage value is not to be accepted.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We always anticipated that this would be one of the most complicated and contentious parts of the Bill. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I go back over some of the history. Before I do so, perhaps I may comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which seeks to extend the
CWH 234
provisions of the Acts to houses and achieve a greater degree of consistency in the treatment of houses and flats. So far we have been unable to come up with a provision to do that, but we shall look at that amendment to see whether we can do anything along those lines in the course of the Bill.
The remainder of the amendments to a greater extent tend to exclude marriage value from the purchase price altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, is right: the Government do not think that that is a sensible move. There has been some shift in position over the course of the years, which largely relates to the nature of the property with which we have been dealing.
The story of leasehold reform began with houses in 1967, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. The Leasehold Reform Act particularly concerned South Wales, where there were a lot of Victorian houses which were coming to the end of their leases in difficult economic times. The 1967 Act gave leaseholders in houses of relatively modest rateable value the right to buy the freehold on what were extremely favourable terms, and with no concept of marriage value.
Later legislation extended the right to leaseholders of higher value houses but specifically on less advantageous terms. We do not wish to go back over that but it has affected the argument. We cannot use the 1967 Act to justify the exclusion of marriage value, as has been suggested. That Act related to an entirely different property environment, regime and balance of power between leaseholders and landlords and was not intended to address the kind of situation we are discussing.
Nevertheless, it has to be recognised that the right to enfranchise is a compulsory right. To exercise that right, the leaseholders do not have to demonstrate that the freeholder is at fault. It is therefore only fair that the freeholder should receive the same price that he would have obtained from selling the freehold to them voluntarily. The problem is that the effect of enfranchisement of itself changes that value.
When leaseholders collectively buy the freehold of a block of flats, they obtain a benefit which no other purchaser would. They can grant themselves, for example, new 999-year leases without having to pay a penny for them; and they can buy the freehold of a house which is no longer subject to any lease restrictions at all. The value of that benefit is usually described as the marriage value.
If their existing leases have, say, 80 or more years left to run, new longer leases will be worth little more than the existing ones, and so the marriage value in those circumstances will often be insignificant. However, if the unexpired term is relatively short, the difference would be substantial. The same is true, to a large extent, for leasehold houses.

CWH 235
It follows that in a sale between willing parties, where the unexpired term of the leases was not very long the leaseholders would be prepared to pay additional money for this extra benefit. However, they certainly would not offer the whole amount of the marriage value. They would be well aware that they represented the freeholder's only chance of getting a higher price than he would get from an ordinary, straightforward purchase within that form of tenure.
In practice, a sale would only be agreed if the parties agreed to split the difference. If the parties were willing and eager, we calculate that in most circumstances the difference would be the same as we are providing for here; namely, 50:50. The freeholder would end up with a rather higher price than he would have received in other circumstances, but the leaseholders would still end up with an asset which is worth more than they paid for it. In a sense, therefore, there are no victims and only gainers in this process.
The valuation arrangements for leasehold renewals on flats also include a share of marriage value. People often ask how marriage value can be said to apply in a situation where, unlike with enfranchisement, there is no joining or marriage of the two interests. It is the case that marriage value does not quite have the same meaning in the lease renewal contract. Indeed, marriage value is perhaps not the right term but it is the term that has been carried over from the other circumstance. As defined in the Act, it is the difference between the aggregate values of the landlord's and the tenant's interests as they are before the new lease is granted and as they will be after it is granted. The notion that, in one way or another, extra value is created by the transaction is common in both cases and for lease extension, as for enfranchisement, any amount of married value will tend to be extremely small if the unexpired term of the lease is still very long. Similarly, as under the right to enfranchise, the split of marriage value has been argued about in individual cases but, in most cases, we considered it sensible to go for 50:50.
One can go through even more difficult arithmetic assessments to grasp about how the lease renewal valuation provisions and the enfranchisement counterparts work, but the broad intention is the same. The leaseholder should be required to pay no more, but also no less, for the compulsory acquisition of a new lease than he would in a similar transaction between the same, but this time willing, parties.
That is the principle behind what we are still calling marriage value. In our view it is a sound one. There are defects of detail in these provisions and we are taking corrective action to address them in the Bill. Before doing so, however, it might be as well to compare the 1993 regime with the arrangements for compulsory acquisition under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Compulsory acquisition under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant 1987 Act means that, sometimes, the leaseholders will want to enfranchise mainly because of a negligent attitude to management by the freeholder. There is a separate procedure under that Act for leaseholders of flats to seek to buy their
CWH 236
freehold where the landlord is in serious breach of the lease and likely to remain so—although it has to be said that this has not been much used. In those circumstances, the court can make an acquisition order which entitles leaseholders to buy their freehold. They can do that at a price which excludes marriage value. But that is because, in those circumstances, the landlord is clearly at fault and therefore a penal regime is appropriate. If marriage value were removed from the valuation arrangements under the 1993 Act, there would no longer be a distinction between the provisions governing no fault transactions and default transactions. In the Government's view, that is difficult to defend.
I now turn to Clauses 123, 124, 131 and 132, which are mainly addressed by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The provisions of the 1993 Act were based on the principles that I have just described, but they were defective in two ways. First, they provided that the freeholder's share could never be less than 50 per cent but could be higher. We considered that to be unfair and we have therefore fixed the division at 50 per cent. The previous situation clearly led to arguments between the parties. A fixed sharing of the married value is more sensible and is likely to lead to a speedier process. Secondly, the 1993 Act encouraged the parties into further arguments about the amount of marriage value, even though there would obviously be practically none in those circumstances. The Government want to retain the principle of those provisions but to eliminate the scope for wasteful argument, both about the amount of the marriage value and about the split.
In practice, all but a very few divisions at the LVT tribunal—and those only in highly unusual situations—have split the value equally between the parties. That has not stopped landlords arguing for a greater share. Therefore, we consider that the marriage value should be split 50:50 in all cases.
Clause 124 provides that where the unexpired term of each of the leases held by participating members of an RTE company exceeds 80 years, no marriage value is payable. Amendments Nos. 224 and 228B would instead provide for a 90-year cut-off for enfranchisements and leasehold renewals. Amendments Nos. 224A and 228C would provide for a 100-year cut-off.
We have already heard views on the principle of the cut-off. Our objective is to prevent costly arguments that are completely disproportionate to the sums involved. The principle of cut-off is consistent with this objective, and that seems sensible to us. However, whatever cut-off is chosen, it seems likely that there will be those who will argue for a different cut-off. We accept that, on occasions, tribunals have sometimes awarded an element of marriage value where the leases have 90 or more years unexpired. But that would normally be a relatively small amount of money—perhaps less than the costs of any legal action.

CWH 237
It was a key principle of the 1993 Act that valuations for collective enfranchisement should be on the assumption that the Act and its consequences did not in effect exist. In practice, the operation of the Act has distorted the market or altered it so that transactions have taken place, including an element of marriage value where the unexpired terms of existing leases exceeded 80 years. This has been particularly so in some parts of the country as distinct from others. The effect has been that some very experienced and well-resourced landlords, particularly on the great London estates, have brought to bear on those transactions the best professional advice, often leaving the leaseholders somewhat "under-gunned". The Government's proposal is intended to reduce that potential advantage and restore the original objectives in 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not with us today. His amendments attempt to address some of these difficulties by introducing a degree of tapering of the position where the cut-off point would operate—a Cheshire cat, where the unexpired term of the lease grows shorter and the provisions gradually disappear. We have not thought it sensible to go down that road. It would greatly complicate the position. The main reason for not doing so is that in the vast majority of cases the 80 year cut-off does not suddenly occur from a huge marriage value to a nil situation. The marriage value that may be found where the term was 75 years would still be quite modest. Therefore, by the time it reached 80 plus years, the difference would not be all that dramatic.
Nonetheless, we continue to recognise that there is concern over this matter. Our provisions—a 50:50 split and the principle of splitting the marriage value—seem to us to meet the interests of both landlord and leaseholders in a prospective transaction under this part of the Bill. We recognise that there will be rough edges. The more sophisticated attempts to overcome those by changing or tapering the cut-off point will not improve the situation and are more likely to lead to substantial arguments about what will, in most cases, be very limited sums of money.
I apologise to the Committee again for speaking at some length. It is important to place on record the Government's arguments against the principle of excluding marriage value. The formula we have come up with is relatively easy to understand and provides something in terms of value to the landlord and something in terms of increasing what would otherwise be the value of the flat or property to the leaseholder. I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am obviously very unhappy that the Minister has been unable to make any movement in our direction, despite the fact that this is a change in what was until recently a government policy that was the same as that which we are now putting forward.
CWH 238
Perhaps I may deal first with the 1967 valuation. The element in the valuation under the 1967 Act that was most open to serious objection was not in fact the absence of marriage value, which was not in the original 1967 Act and was introduced a couple of years later, but the introduction into the computation of a wholly artificial 60 year extension of the lease. Thus the valuation of a house which was subject to a lease that was due to expire in two years' time was calculated on the basis that the lease would to expire in 62 years' time. That seemed to me at the time—and frankly seems to me still—to be very unfair. I felt that because of that provision the Duke of Westminster was unlucky to lose his application in the European Court. The 1967 valuation on the basis of this purely nominal lease has not been repeated in the case of any later confirmed rights to enfranchisement or to an extended lease and is not proposed by us now. We are looking at what is, certainly in terms of valuation, the considerably less important issue of marriage value, but it is one that nevertheless causes great concern and distress to many leaseholders faced with an obligation to pay it.
We believe that one of the roles of Government is to protect people who are in a weak bargaining position. That is why we have a great deal of consumer protection legislation for instance. Perhaps I may give an example with which I am familiar from my professional work. The Consumer Credit Act is intended to correct market inequality between parties.
There is undoubtedly inequality in these cases between the landlord and the tenant. To some extent that inequality is due to the fact that tenants are likely to be poorer than landlords, although in individual cases there are, of course, rich tenants and poor landlords. By and large, it is likely that the landlords will have access to better advice and representation, so that the valuations that are produced by the courts will be somewhat skewed in their direction.
Perhaps more important than that is the fact that many of the tenants are people who are living in the property. That is why marriage value exists, because if there was no detriment to moving out of one flat and finding another, the tenant would simply not be willing to pay more in order to buy the freehold than any other prospective purchaser. We believe that marriage value is therefore due to market inequality and to the weaker bargaining position of the tenant in occupation. For that reason, we believe that the appropriate course of action for a Government to take is to correct that inequality by eliminating its representations in terms of cash; namely, the marriage value.
We do not see that this is likely to give rise to any problems with the Human Rights Act. The European Court of Human Rights, having swallowed the camel of the 1967 basis of valuation, is, we believe, unlikely to balk at swallowing the gnat of marriage value. This is an important issue and I would regret it if, as the

CWH 239
noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, it caused ill will between landlords and tenants. Nevertheless, this is something that we must take further and bring back on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 223A not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Disregard of marriage value in case of very long leases]:
[Amendments Nos. 224A and 224 not moved.]
Clause 124 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until next Thursday, 22nd March, at 4 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday, 22nd March, at 4 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  Variant CJD: Published Data
  Variant CJD: Published Data
  European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14: Justifiable Discrimination
  European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14: Justifiable Discrimination
  Autism
  Autism
  Chinook ZD576: Position of Crewmen
  Chinook ZD576: Position of Crewmen
  PAY 2000: Army Expenditure
  PAY 2000: Army Expenditure
  Army Personnel: Overseas Tours
  Army Personnel: Overseas Tours
  EC Own Resources: UK Net Contributions
  EC Own Resources: UK Net Contributions
  European Union: Inflation Comparisons
  European Union: Inflation Comparisons
  European Union Long-term Interest Rate Comparisons
  European Union Long-term Interest Rate Comparisons
  Millennium Dome Faith Zone Donation: VAT
  Millennium Dome Faith Zone Donation: VAT
  Barnett Formula Allocations
  Barnett Formula Allocations
  QCs and Judges: Appointment Processes Scrutiny
  QCs and Judges: Appointment Processes Scrutiny
  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Police Numbers
  Police Numbers
  Terrorism Act 2000: Objectives of Proscribed Organisations
  Terrorism Act 2000: Objectives of Proscribed Organisations
  Previous Conviction Information: Overseas Inquiries
  Previous Conviction Information: Overseas Inquiries
  Wales: Manufacturing Job Statistics
  Wales: Manufacturing Job Statistics
  Wales: Farm Income Decline
  Wales: Farm Income Decline
  Caravan and Mobile Home Sites: Local Reference Rent
  Caravan and Mobile Home Sites: Local Reference Rent
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Local Authorities: Alternative Arrangements Guidance
  Local Authorities: Alternative Arrangements Guidance
  Cattle Carcass Burning
  Cattle Carcass Burning
  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000
  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000