Sitting of 19 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the chair
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Community Involvement (Armed Forces)
    1. Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on involving the armed forces in the community.[152698]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The armed forces are an integral part of the community. As the strategic defence review stressed, the armed forces serve the community by providing it with the defence it needs and by acting as a force for good in the world. They are also actively involved in the community—whether through their support of youth initiatives, their involvement in ceremonial duties, their participation in charity work, or their support to the civil authorities when the community as a whole is faced with an emergency.
    Over the past few months, they have demonstrated their dedication to the community in an unprecedented manner. More than 1,000 drivers stood ready to ensure that fuel
    2
    was delivered, essential services maintained and lives saved when the effects of the fuel protest threatened to get out of hand. Twice that number helped to defend lives and property from the most damaging effects of recent flooding. They performed those tasks as an integral part of the community they serve, working with the emergency services and other representatives of the community to promote the common welfare of the community as a whole.
    The armed forces are already providing logistics advice to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to aid it with the disposal of slaughtered animals. We are of course responding promptly to any further specific requests for assistance that we receive from MAFF.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the armed forces for their work in such emergencies. Will my hon. Friend specify the details of the specialist assistance that the armed forces are offering to tackle the foot and mouth outbreak?
    Mr. Spellar: Following the discussion with MAFF last week, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to provide MAFF with help in supervising the disposal of carcases of slaughtered livestock, focusing especially on the backlog of carcases that has built up. A logistics headquarters is being established in Devon to co-ordinate the activities of small teams drawn from the armed forces and deployed in the field. Those teams will reduce the burden on veterinary surgeons by helping to co-ordinate the efforts of the private contractors employed to dispose of the carcases. In doing so, they will speed up the disposal process and release vets to tackle the spread of the disease.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: I am sure that all Members will join the Minister in warmly thanking the armed forces for their work in aiding the civil power and local communities. He has touched on the foot and mouth outbreak, but could he be slightly more specific? Will he tell the House how many members of the armed forces

    3
    are involved at present, and whether he intends—if the crisis continues—to respond to any request by MAFF to use the armed forces on a larger scale, especially units of the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Royal Logistic Corps?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, we stand ready to respond rapidly to further requests from MAFF, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is always a case of striking a balance between the availability of service from civilian contractors and, in many cases, the geographical disposition of that service. At present, about 300 members of the armed forces are engaged, and about 50 two-man teams will be employed on local liaison work as well. The armed forces are already undertaking that work, but of course we recognise the scale of the problem and stand ready to respond.
    Mr. Robert Key: We are grateful to the Minister for explaining the work carried out in association with MAFF on the outbreak of foot and mouth. Will he explain any forward planning that might involve more members of the armed forces? Will that include not only the veterinary service and the Logistic Corps but an increasing number of Engineers, with their equipment? Will he tell us why the MOD is excluded from the Prime Minister's taskforce on foot and mouth disease, given that four other Departments are involved and when—obviously—the MOD will be crucial in the operation?
    Mr. Spellar: Certainly we stand ready to provide assistance, including on the engineering side. However, there are considerable resources in the construction industry that can undertake such work.
    With regard to membership of various committees, I think that I have been filmed going into Downing street to attend meetings on this matter. We are clearly involved and we stand ready to respond to requests from those who are dealing with these matters at first hand—which is exactly the appropriate relationship.

    Joint Military Capability
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: What measures are being taken to enhance joint military capability between the UK and its north American and European allies. [152699]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Work is progressing in NATO on the defence capabilities initiative in the five key areas of effective engagement, survivability of forces and infrastructure, command and control, sustainability and logistics, and deployability and mobility.
    We are also pursuing our commitments to the European Union headline goal, which will complement progress with the DCI to improve European military capabilities. Additionally, we are seeking greater capability and inter-operability with other nations through multinational defence co-operation.
    Mr. Ennis: On the eve of his visit to the United States, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what message he will take to the American Secretary of Defence?
    4
    In particular, will my right hon. Friend emphasise to Mr. Rumsfeld that the aims of the European defence security policy are consistent with the aims of NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: There will be a series of meetings in Washington in the next few days to ensure absolute consistency between NATO's efforts to improve military capabilities through the defence capabilities initiative and European efforts to do precisely the same thing through the achievement of the Helsinki headline goal. That is the message that I shall take to Washington.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Secretary of State confirm that for this country to take part in any major operation involving substantial airlift or intelligence capabilities—in other words, any major operation—would require American support? At a time when we may be close to a major outbreak of fresh conflict in the Balkans, will he tell us what extra resources our European allies are making available to match the extra commitments that we shall make under the European commitment that he has just described?
    Mr. Hoon: We have always made it clear that we would regard NATO and, therefore, United States support for such an operation as being the way in which we would undertake any major operation. A number of our European allies are certainly increasing their defence expenditure, but, equally, we have made it similarly clear that the vital matter is not simply how much money is spent—important though that is—but what it is spent on. That is precisely why it is so important that we pursue, through the DCI, improvements in NATO's capabilities, including heavy lift, as well as the absolutely consistent approach in the Helsinki headline goal to improve European capability. I take it from the hon. Gentleman's observations that he supports the efforts that we are making.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On joint military capabilities, some weeks ago 1 asked the Ministry of Defence what happened to Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists when they were arrested by KFOR and taken to Camp Bond Steel. Perhaps I am still waiting for an answer because, far from charging the terrorists, it would appear that the US contingent of KFOR was training them in the American sector and allowing them to smuggle arms and launch attacks across the borders of Serbia and Macedonia. What are the leaders of KFOR going to do about the situation in Macedonia? Are we simply going to abandon them to this attack?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend appears to be misinformed. The United States has made it absolutely clear that it is giving no active or tacit support to any kind of terrorist activity. It remains entirely even-handed in the way it deals with terrorist activity, from whichever ethnic community it comes. I assure her that it is not engaged in activity of the kind that she describes.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that we may be about to witness a real test of joint military capability if the dangerous situation in Macedonia deteriorates any further? If that happens, does he agree that it may be necessary for NATO to do more than strengthen patrols on the border?

    5
    At a time when the United States is indicating that it intends to withdraw troops from Bosnia, does not the situation in Macedonia provide an ideal opportunity for the European nations to show that they are serious about military capability and about Europe taking more responsibility for European defence issues?
    Mr. Hoon: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those in the NATO capitals have been in regular contact in recent days about the increasing tension on the borders of Macedonia. There have been discussions, which continue, about the appropriate action for KFOR to take and who should initiate it. At this stage, I am not in a position to tell the House more than that, except to say that we regard the situation there with grave concern and we will take appropriate action when necessary.

    Accommodation (Service Personnel)
    Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on his plans to improve single living accommodation and married quarters overseas for service personnel. [152700]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Government are determined that our military personnel will have good living accommodation. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a major new initiative for improving service single living accommodation in the United Kingdom. We also plan upgrade programmes for both single living and family accommodation overseas. Significant projects are already in hand, such as the rebuilding and refurbishing of all accommodation in Cyprus. The new money made available to the defence budget in the 2000 spending review has allowed us to increase the investment in upgrade programmes elsewhere.
    Ms Squire: I welcome the announcement on improving the standard of service accommodation made last week by my right hon. Friend. On a recent visit to Episkopi barracks in Cyprus, I was impressed by the professionalism of the 1st battalion, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, but appalled by the standard of single living accommodation that it has endured during its two-year tour of duty, so I welcome the Minister's assurance that it will be improved. Can he also assure me that, as the first battalion should have transferred to Catterick by now, the standard of accommodation there will represent an improvement? Does he agree that one can only ask what the previous Government were doing for 18 years to allow such substandard accommodation to be provided for our armed services personnel?
    Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the history of the previous Government was one of a steady and slow decline in the overall quality of accommodation. I have visited many sites in the United Kingdom and Germany and I have made it clear that I find them unacceptable. She will be glad to know that our additional money for overseas investment is projected to build up to £55 million a year over the next few years. That will go a long way to remedying the deficits.
    6
    The problem cannot be cured overnight, but we have made a start and we have promised that we will continue that work.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not want to be churlish, so I am bound to say that I welcome the investment in accommodation, especially that for Aldershot, because the Minister knows that the accommodation in Montgomery lines is particularly poor. However, it is appalling that, five days after the Secretary of State for Defence smuggled out the information by way of a written answer and despite my representations to his office, I have still not been told what investment will be made in Aldershot. I learned from the Minister for the Armed Forces, speaking on Southern Counties Radio, that there would be £3 million of investment for Aldershot, but will the Under-Secretary tell us precisely what that means for my constituents, or whether it is just money for the future and another Labour mirage?
    Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman may not have wanted to be churlish, but he certainly made a dashed good stab at it. Given the many sites that need upgrading, it has sadly not been possible to notify every right hon. and hon. Member about our plans. However, when we have specific proposals, they will be informed about them. Late last year, I saw the situation at Montgomery lines at first hand and we have managed to identify separate moneys that will go towards the temporary upgrading of the accommodation on that site. However, we recognise that we cannot replace all the substandard accommodation overnight.

    Ministerial Meetings (France)
    Mr. John Bercow: When he last met the French Defence Minister to discuss European security. [152701]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last met Alain Richard on 9 February this year at Cahors to discuss a range of defence issues of mutual interest, including European security.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. When the Prime Minister referred in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday to those people who really may have
    "an agenda to destroy NATO",
    assuming that he did not intend to incriminate himself, did he mean the French? If not, who did he mean? If he did mean the French, why cannot the Secretary of State see that the Prime Minister's collusion for more than two years with the French "federasts" from St. Malo to Cologne and from Helsinki to Nice is clear evidence of knavery, folly or a potentially lethal combination of the two?
    Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister was referring not to Governments, but to those individuals who seek to undermine NATO.
    Mr. Bercow: Name names.
    Mr. Hoon: For example, the hon. Gentleman should think of those who go from the United Kingdom to

    7
    Washington to pour scorn into the ears of those who have not considered the matter in detail. By undermining or seeking to undermine European co-operation, they are of course undermining the United Kingdom—not something that any British Government or any responsible British Prime Minister would seek to do.
    Mr. David Winnick: If it was necessary to have a common European security policy with the United States to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—a policy that I urged and fully supported—is it not now necessary to have again a common European security policy to stop Albanian extremists, who are not representative of the Albanian people, undermining the peace and security that have come to the Balkans?
    Mr. Hoon: I made it clear in response to an earlier question that NATO capitals are looking carefully at the situation on the border with Macedonia. We regard the matter with grave concern and, certainly, we are taking appropriate action to deal with any kind of extremism from any ethic community.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that the European rapid reaction force will draw on the same forces as NATO, how will it be able to engage in an operation in which, by definition, NATO does not wish to engage, without reducing NATO's capabilities for the operations in which it does wish to participate? Have the French, for example, said that they intend to allocate a single extra soldier, sailor or airman to the defence of Europe, or will they simply raid the forces allocated to NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We have made it clear that we would distinguish between the war-fighting activity in which we would expect NATO to be involved, for which forces that have been allocated to it are properly and suitably trained, and the peacekeeping Petersberg tasks, in which we would expect the European Union to engage. That is why there is no inconsistency between our efforts with NATO and the EU to improve military capability.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Given the many statements made in Washington and London about the importance of NATO and Europe working side by side, why were the French Government not informed by the Americans when they bombed Baghdad?
    Hon. Members: Answer that.
    Mr. Hoon: I shall try to deal with a number of factual errors that my right hon. Friend has set out. In the first instance, the so-called bombing of Baghdad was a self-defence operation, conducted by the coalition forces in defence of their aircraft. Although some targets were near Baghdad, it is stretching the facts to suggest that they were in Baghdad. As for information that is communicated to the French, it is for the coalition to determine the appropriate time when allies are informed. I am sure that they were informed at an appropriate stage.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is using sophistry to cover
    8
    the Prime Minister's words. The Prime Minister made his position clear in an interview in The Sunday Telegraph, in which he said:
    "well, if we don't get involved in European defence … then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy NATO will have control of it."
    In 1997, after the Amsterdam summit, he was utterly opposed to a Euro defence programme, which he described as an "ill-judged transplant operation", but, by 1998, he was suddenly in favour of it. Which group of nationals did the Prime Minister have in mind when he referred to those who wish to destroy NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: I have already answered that; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention. Perhaps he was also not paying attention when the previous Government set out and signed up to a common European defence policy at Maastricht. Certainly, the great majority of Conservative Members supported that, although I suppose that I should excuse him because he opposed it. Does the Conservative party oppose everything to do with the EU instinctively, even when it is clearly in Britain's best interests to participate? Has its loose coalition on Europe broken down?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister did not tell the Secretary of State about those people who will be destroying NATO, because he has not got a brief to that effect. The reality is simple. As ever, the Government are facing in two directions at once. On the one hand, they are telling the Americans, "Don't worry. Trust us"; on the other, they are saying to the people who will destroy NATO, "Don't worry. You can trust us, too. We're all in this together." Is it not the reality that since St. Malo, they have colluded in a process that will deliver the destruction of NATO? In addition, the Prime Minister said in the interview that he was a great believer in natural law—we now know that the Government spend all their time flying by the seat of their pants.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds the world such a confusing and difficult place. I am sure that it would be simpler for all of us if, like the modern Conservative party, we simply turned our back on any sort of international development, irrespective of whether it was in Britain's interest, as well as on any sort of European development. The position that the hon. Gentleman sets out is that it is all very complicated and too difficult for us, so it is far easier to stick our head firmly in the sand and leave it there.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that many years ago at Labour party conferences there used to be long resolutions from the constituency parties that advocated the withdrawal from NATO? I and one or two of my hon. Friends used to support that proposition, and I am not a supporter of the Common Market either. I get my cake and eat it too—I am quite enjoying this little spat and I hope that it will go on for a long time.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend will recall that in those days, I was sometimes required to appear before the Bolsover general management committee. It is fair to say that on those occasions, although I was a minority of one,

    9
    I consistently supported membership of both the European Union and NATO. I am delighted that the Labour party and now the Labour Government have also adopted that position.

    RAF Numbers
    Mr. James Gray: How many people left the Royal Air Force in each of the past three years. [152702]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): A total of 14,138 people left the RAF in the three years ending 31 December 2000; 4,847 left the service in 1998, 4,712 in 1999 and 4,579 in 2000. That was balanced against intake figures of 4,088 during 1998, 4,759 during 1999 and 3,731 during 2000.
    Mr. Gray: Those figures are accurately reflected at RAF Lyneham in my constituency, where each year up to 5 per cent. more people leave than come in. That is not merely a result of overstretch caused by Sierra Leone and the Balkans; it is also caused by very poor living conditions and failure to invest in infrastructure at RAF Lyneham. Does the Minister agree that more people are now leaving the RAF than are joining and that that makes a mockery of the fine words in the strategic defence review's "Policy for People", which stated that
    "delivery of tangible improvements in overstretch and undermanning"
    was entirely dependent on finding new people? Why have the Government failed to do that in the three years since the SDR, and what does the Minister intend to do about it now?
    Mr. Spellar: I did not read out the outflow figures for the years under the previous Conservative Administration. We inherited a figure of 7,512 in 1997; in 1996—the Conservatives' last full year in office—the outflow figure was 10,544; in 1995 it was 5,610, and in 1994 it was 6,394. In every one of those years, there was a greater outflow than any that has occurred under the Labour Government. We are matching intake figures to outflow figures. The RAF recruited 98.6 per cent. of its requirement last year.
    The hon. Gentleman has a real cheek to talk about accommodation when the Conservatives did nothing about it for 18 years and after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have announced a major building programme to rectify the problems. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of our policy, but not for his party's dereliction of duty.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister arrange for those figures to be analysed to determine whether there is evidence of a significant number of people with minor disabilities leaving the RAF when those disabilities do not prevent them from undertaking their responsibilities; and whether there is any danger of discrimination against people with minor disabilities in RAF recruitment?
    Mr. Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman mixes two issues: first, requirements on recruitment and, secondly,
    10
    changes in people's health and abilities occurring during their service. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is undertaking a review of service intake to match up the number of those with minor disabilities to modern day requirements.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that all the services, rightly, do a great deal to accommodate those who have already undertaken training, committed themselves to the service, and have a lot to offer. A balance has to be struck in the light of the requirement that all service personnel be available for active duty, but he will know that that is handled effectively and sensitively by the services.

    RAF Bases (Commercial Development)
    Caroline Flint: What steps he has taken to promote the regeneration of former RAF bases for commercial aviation use. [152703]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): A number of former RAF bases have been or are in the process of being sold for civil aviation purposes, including Finningley in my hon. Friend's constituency, Manston, Farnborough, and Kemble. Our usual policy is to market a former airfield for civil aviation purposes where that is consistent with the current planning process and Government accounting regulations.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I congratulate the Government on their decision in 1997 to stop the previous Government's proposal to turn RAF Finningley into the fourth prison in my constituency? May I also congratulate them on excluding the option of quarrying on one of the best runways in the country and disposing of it for aviation use?
    Will my hon. Friend confirm that former RAF bases have made a valuable contribution to the development of regional and civil aviation? Will he also confirm that several airports, including Manchester airport before it got permission for a second runway, expressed interest in the purchase of Finningley which, with the second longest runway in the north and excellent weather conditions, is ideally suited to be a civil airport?
    Dr. Moonie: I can certainly agree with my hon. Friend's final remarks. Finningley offers a superb site for an airport. I understand that Doncaster metropolitan borough council has approved a planning application to develop a major international airport site and that it has been called in for determination by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Several airfields have been or are being sold for purposes which, we firmly believe, will continue to expand civil aviation.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In order to meet the strategic defence review's commitment to raise gross receipts of £700 million from the sale of surplus defence land by 2002—perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is on course—is it the Government's policy to

    11
    get the maximum commercial return from such spare land, subject to planning permission, or to designate particular areas of spare defence land for particular purposes?
    Dr. Moonie: The position is not quite as the hon. Gentleman says. We discuss things carefully with local councils—with their elected representatives if necessary, but certainly with the planning authorities—to try to establish the best use of a site, which then goes forward for bidding in the usual tendering process. In those circumstances, we seek to get the best possible commercial return from the deal.

    Ministerial Meetings (France)
    Mr. Tony McWalter: When he last met his French counterpart to discuss naval co-operation between France, the UK and the USA. [152704]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I regularly discuss bilateral naval co-operation with both my French and American colleagues. When I last met my French counterpart on 9 February in Cahors, naval co-operation formed part of the background to our discussions. The close nature of our naval co-operation with the United States was most recently demonstrated by agreement to the permanent stationing of a British sailor on the USS Winston Churchill, which was launched last week.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Given the similarity in the size of the French and British naval forces, will my right hon. Friend set out for the House the full extent of co-operation between them? In particular, will he make clear the synergy between that co-operation and work with the United States navy?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is an agreement on naval co-operation with the French, which covers a wide range of activity, including operations. In addition, 20 formal working groups have been established, dealing with training, submarine co-operation, operational planning, doctrine communications and personnel exchanges. That agreement was drawn up in 1996 and signed by the then Secretary of State for Defence. As my hon. Friend said, the size of our respective navies means that there are significant opportunities for co-operation with the United States navy, which we pursue vigorously.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome co-operation with the United States, but does he not accept that co-operation on submarines, especially with the French navy, is crucial to our long-term training for submarine warfare?
    Mr. Hoon: Co-operation on submarines is at a relatively early stage; visits were conducted to one another's ports only recently. There are obviously matters of great national sensitivity surrounding our nuclear submarine fleet, and I am sure that the French believe that that is so for them, too. There are certainly practical benefits in co-operation, not least in the light of the appalling disaster and loss of the Russian submarine Kursk.

    Armed Forces (Retention)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to improve retention in the armed forces. [152705]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Armed forces retention is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. We have introduced a wide range of measures aimed at improving retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families, both at home and on deployment. Last month, we announced that we had accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations in full, and our people will see that reflected in their pay packets in May, backdated to April. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our plans to spend up to £200 million a year on an upgrade programme to bring single living accommodation up to the standards expected by service personnel in the 21st century.
    In addition, I am pleased to announce that we shall introduce a further package of improvements to the operational welfare package, which will extend welfare provision to include all maritime deployments and exercises lasting two months or more. From next month, all personnel deployed on operations or on exercises lasting more than two months will receive hot shower facilities and laundry, and a comprehensive communications package, including 20 minutes of free telephone calls each week, free e-blueys and free e-mail facilities— [Interruption.]—to enable personnel to keep in contact with their families.
    We will also be introducing an additional British Forces Broadcasting Services channel and NAAFI retail facilities in the Balkans, and providing additional leisure and fitness equipment in all our operational theatres for off-duty relaxation. [Interruption.] In all, this welfare package will amount to an additional £60 million over the next four years. [Interruption.]
    Dr. Iddon: I am staggered by that answer. I do not know whether I have a supplementary question left, after that. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises that the welfare of our services personnel is an important component of retention. Although good housing is important, as other hon. Members have observed, does my hon. Friend agree that there are other factors, apart from those that he mentioned— [HON. MEMBERS: "He mentioned quite a lot."] He did, indeed. I refer to factors such as counselling when people run into personal difficulties, good schooling for children, and as my hon. Friend suggested, that partners are kept in contact with one another when they are separated, especially when people serve for long periods overseas. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Spellar: We should understand the dilemma that the Opposition are in: those are all issues that they neglected over 18 years. We are rectifying matters. There is a long list of step that we are taking to improve the welfare of our forces, who will note the way in which the Opposition responded to our announcements. The improvements have long been required, and they recognise the pressure that our people are under and the contribution that they make. As my hon. Friend knows, we are dealing with schooling in this country through the service families taskforce and also through the service

    13
    education system, under my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We are introducing real change; the Opposition did nothing about it.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that, like me, most hon. Members appreciate that. Service men and women know only too well who let them down over the previous 18 years. Most of what the Minister announced is welcome, but will he deal with two issues for which he was responsible? One is the speedy settlement of service men's compensation claims, not least the claims of men who did not have proper malaria cover when they were in Sierra Leone. The other concerns the anomalies relating to Pay 2000 and the way in which that has undermined the rates pay of for senior enlisted personnel.
    Mr. Spellar: No one will lose money under Pay 2000. We are always prepared to examine anomalies as a system is introduced. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his previous incarnation, pay systems are extremely difficult, but from the response that we have had, we believe that Pay 2000 is a welcome development. With regard to malaria, the situation has been slightly overplayed by the media. The facts that we have ascertained do not bear out the scare stories, but where there is liability, as I understand there clearly is in one case, there will be speedy settlement of that claim.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Before the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. lddon) gets too carried away by his Government's propaganda, I should tell him that a number of the announcements that have just been made are recycled and were originally made months ago.
    Having had a few minutes of reflection, will the Minister for the Armed Forces accept that he gave a thoroughly disingenuous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on the vital matter of numbers? There is no comparison between the planned reduction of our forces in the 1990s, which was consequent upon the end of the cold war, and the current Government's monumental failure to achieve the targets set out in their strategic defence review. What is more, they are continuing to go backwards. Is there now the slightest hope that the Army will achieve even its latest target of a 97 per cent. level of effectiveness by 2004, given that under the Government's mismanagement, net retention in the armed forces continues to decline?
    Mr. Spellar: I have to give it to the hon. Gentleman—he is certainly a good sport and is being very fair. It is good of him to remind the House and the country of his Government's lamentable record regarding the sackings, or compulsory redundancies, that occurred in the armed forces, and of the huge numbers of people in the Army whose employment was terminated early. That had a considerable effect on recruitment; indeed, the previous Government left us with significant under-recruitment. In a period of rising employment, with the lowest unemployment figures for 25 years, it is a tribute to our recruitment teams that they have been able to maintain the position, despite the appalling circumstances with which the Conservatives and their gross mismanagement left us. It is good of him to remind us of that.

    Colchester Garrison
    9. Mr. Bob Russell: When temporary additional accommodation for members of the Parachute Regiment will be provided within the Colchester garrison. [152706]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am pleased to say that recruitment to the Parachute Regiment is currently buoyant. We expect it to be 45 personnel over establishment by August this year. I am sorry to say, however, that that has led to a shortage of service accommodation in Colchester. The private finance initiative project at Colchester will address that problem. In the short term, temporary accommodation will be used to alleviate the situation. We expect that to be available for use by the Parachute Regiment by mid-August.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Under-Secretary accept that the previous Government's privatisation of Army married quarters at a give-away sales price, added to the MOD's lack of forward planning, means that more than 200 members of the Parachute Regiment are renting more than 70 private houses in Colchester—a town that already has the worst homelessness record in the east of England? Will he give an assurance that the target date of mid-August will be advanced? The Parachute Regiment has been in Colchester for the best part of a year, so the forward planning should have been done long ago and the accommodation should be available now.
    Dr. Moonie: I fully accept the catalogue of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman describes. I assure him that the temporary bed spaces, of which there will be 224 in all, will be available in August, when we need them. Regrettably, a number of personnel—primarily officers and senior non-commissioned officers—will continue to be accommodated in married quarters. Some of them may have to remain in private rented accommodation, but the new spaces will have an enormous effect on easing the problem.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I accept that the money for single soldiers' accommodation in Colchester and elsewhere is welcome, but the Under-Secretary will know that the £100 million a year extra that is being spent on accommodation exceeds the whole defence budget increase, as set out in the comprehensive spending review. It is now well known in the Ministry of Defence that the long-term costings process has been absolutely bloody and that serious consequences will be announced. When can we expect to learn the results of the long-term costings process?
    Dr. Moonie: I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman was responsible for advising the previous Government on some of the appalling policies that they introduced. I am happy to say that we have managed to secure valuable additional resources for accommodation, which should be welcomed by every hon. Member. That has not been done at the expense of any other long-term planning. We have decided that there should be a proper balance in the allocation of resources. For too long,

    15
    the previous Government allowed accommodation to go to rack and ruin—something that this Government are no longer prepared to tolerate.

    National Missile Defence
    Mr. David Atkinson: What his latest assessment is of the impact of the United States proposal for a national missile defence on UK defence policy. [1527071
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the US national missile defence proposal. [152711]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom shares the United States concerns about the problem of missile proliferation and will continue to work with that country in tackling it. It is clearly not in Britain's interest for our closest ally to feel vulnerable to attack. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of a response. However, until the US makes specific proposals, it remains premature to reach judgments about the impact on UK defence policy, although, as we have made clear, we want to be helpful to our closest ally.
    Mr. Atkinson: The Secretary of State said that he shared the United States assessment of threat. When the Western European Union's Technological and Aerospace Committee went to Russia last month, we found that Russia also shared that assessment. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take a robust lead in promoting discussion in NATO between the United States, Russia and our European allies on shared missile defence, which would deter any rogue state that has weapons of mass destruction from threatening to deploy them?
    Mr. Hoon: We have already held several discussions in NATO about missile defence; I am sure that they will continue. We have encouraged the United States to discuss Russia's problem with Russia, which also suggested a proposal for missile defence. NATO is evaluating that. That process will continue, and it is sensible for all the countries to consider carefully the offensive and defensive systems that are designed to deal with nuclear proliferation.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is unease about the US missile defence system? Does he also agree that it is reckless for the Conservative party to give unfettered support to the project at this stage, when discussions are continuing between the US and other NATO partners?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not recognise my hon. Friend's description of the UK Government's position. We have made it clear that it is sensible for discussions to take place among allies in NATO. We have always encouraged the US to hold discussions with Russia and China. Discussions with Russia are under way. However, we have also said that we should not rush into such a project.
    16
    It should be considered calmly and responsibly, in full consultation with allies. I am delighted that the US has adopted that position.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We all accept that it will take some time before a system is developed. However, why has the Secretary of State got such a hang-up about accepting the principle of the US programme? I understand from his comments that he has not accepted it.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my remarks. He mentioned a programme; although the previous US Administration made a proposal, the new US Administration have not proposed a specific programme. We have made it clear to the US that we want to be helpful when it makes a specific proposal. However, at Camp David, President Bush said:
    "As to whether there will be sites or no sites in the United Kingdom, that's too early to determine, because t have yet to propose to the Prime Minister what will work."
    It makes sense for the UK, as the United States closest ally, to work closely with it and to be helpful if it makes a specific proposal. However, it makes no sense to respond until the US has made its proposals in its defence interests clear.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State is engaged in the new Labour process of sending different messages to different groups in the hope that they do not speak to each other. I know that the Ministry of Defence has told him that he must make a decision. There is a threat, which is likely to grow in the next four to five years, to the UK. The question for the Government is, therefore, not whether the Americans feel threatened, but whether a threat to the United Kingdom is developing. If they agree that there is such a threat, they should say that they support ballistic missile defence in principle. They said that about the euro, why cannot they say it about the defence of the UK?
    Perhaps the Government fear splits. I have a long list of Labour Members who oppose and work to destroy Trident. The list includes the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who are members of the Select Committee on Defence. The Labour party is therefore split and worried about the election.
    Mr. Hoon: I sha11 deal with the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the threat. While we have always recognised that there is a potential threat to Britain's deployed forces and we would want to investigate and examine it to seek ways of protecting the deployed forces, we have not yet been advised that there is any threat to the United Kingdom today.
    I have set out this matter in the House on a number of occasions. I am intrigued that, despite my doing so, the Opposition have decided that there is a threat. I would be interested to know the source of their intelligence on that matter, if "intelligence" is not too strong a word in this context. We continue to monitor the situation, and the Government would certainly report to the House should our perception of any such threat change. However, for the moment, as I have made clear on many occasions, there is no assessment of any threat to the United Kingdom.

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the development of a European rapid reaction force. [152710]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): There is no standing European rapid reaction force. Efforts in the European Union are focused on improving military capabilities to meet the headline goal. Nations identified initial contributions to this goal last November. We are now engaged in detailed analysis of the improvements required, and the action needed to put those improvements into effect.
    Mr. Leigh: I do not think that I have ever heard a British Prime Minister say that the Opposition have been effective in changing attitudes in the American Administration. However, that is what the Prime Minister said in his interview with The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, although he was rather rude about it. I seem to remember words such as "poison", "ears" and "dripping" being used. I wonder whether this could have influenced the United States Defence Secretary's comment that
    "We need to be vigilant to see that we don't do anything that could inject an instability into the alliance
    Is that diplomatic-speak for "I don't like the smell of this. It sounds like limey double-speak to me, but I don't want to criticise it openly because we need Brit support for bombing Saddam Hussein"?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has become so tired and cynical in opposition that he cannot accept words at their face value. The United States Administration have set out their position very clearly, as did the new US President at Camp David. Like their predecessors, they want European defence to develop in a way that strengthens NATO, and so do we. The Prime Minister agreed with the United States President on that at Camp David. Mr. Rumsfeld also said, in the course of the interview to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the devil was in the detail, and he was right. We are determined to ensure that those details continue to be developed in ways that will support and strengthen the alliance. That is the position of the British Government, and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: On the development of a European rapid reaction force, does my right hon. Friend agree that training is imperative, and that Whale island in Portsmouth in my constituency has unique facilities that ought to be used to cross-pollinate the value that we can obtain from such facilities?
    I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to my constituency, and apologise personally for the bad press, which was unfounded. I hope that that will not deter him from coming again, because the visit was appreciated by my constituents and by many of the trade unionists working in the naval base.
    Mr. Hoon: I had an excellent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I assure him that it was not in any way affected by the somewhat tendentious headlines that followed. I was certainly very impressed by what I saw on Whale island and I thought that it provided an excellent
    18
    facility. As he knows, the question of armed forces training is still being reviewed right across the United Kingdom. I cannot, therefore, give him a specific answer to his question today, save to say that he has mounted an extremely vigorous and effective campaign on behalf of his constituents and I am sure that he will continue to harry and harass Ministers with the considerable ability that he has already displayed.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is being given a bad press wherever he goes. Some of us understand that.
    As for the substantial point about European defence co-operation and European defence initiatives, any enlightened Member will welcome greater European defence co-operation as long as it is supportive of NATO, as the Secretary of State said. Do the French now see his point of view, and can he be much more specific about what might happen in Macedonia if action were required and the Americans decided to pull back? Have we yet reached a point at which the right hon. Gentleman is confident that a European presence could be effective in keeping the sides apart on the Macedonian border?
    Mr. Hoon: I know that the hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the last Government, is an expert on bad press. I assure the House that the limited criticism that occurred in a Portsmouth paper following my visit is not something over which I am likely to lose any sleep; but should 1 require advice on dealing with bad publicity, I shall be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's implied offer of assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the headline?"] It is a matter of private grief. I shall leave it to the House of Commons Library to reveal.
    As for the more serious matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, I cannot tell him at this stage precisely how allies propose to deal with the continuing instability along the border of Macedonia. He will understand why it is important that consultations with allies continue—there needs to be broad agreement among them on how to tackle the problem—but we are engaging in close consultation with both NATO capitals and the Macedonian Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a determined effort is under way to resolve the continuing instability.

    Procurement (North-west)
    Maria Eagle: How many jobs were (a) created and (b) sustained as a result of procurement decisions in the north-west since 1997. [152712]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): It is estimated that 350,000 jobs are dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports. Over 60,000 new contracts are placed each year. The Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or sustained as a result of each individual procurement decision, but it is estimated that a substantial number of jobs in the north-west of England depend

    19
    directly on defence equipment expenditure by the Ministry of Defence, and that many more will be created as a result of our recent procurement decisions.
    Maria Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Eurofighter is important to the future effectiveness of the RAF, it is also important to the future of the economy of the north-west, where it is sustaining and creating thousands of jobs? Will he assure me that, unlike the Conservative party, he will remain committed to the project?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give that absolute assurance. Hopefully, the development of the A400M will mean a long-term future for employment in the aircraft industry in the area for many years.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Are not the defence industries in the north-west, as elsewhere, important not just for jobs but for improving the technological base of industry as a whole? Will the Minister—in the words of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—seek to be helpful to the United States in regard to any research programme, development and, ultimately, work that could ensue from ballistic missile defence?
    Dr. Moonie: Perhaps the best example I can give of a tangible project with which we are dealing, as opposed to the fantasy to which the hon. Gentleman refers—at present, anyway— [Interruption.] If we could have fewer moronic remarks from Opposition Front Benchers, I might be able to answer their hon. Friend's question.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to pursue the development of the joint strike fighter, with collaboration from companies in the United States. The project should provide a promising aircraft for our future needs.

    RAF Pilots (Retention)
    Angela Smith: What steps he is taking to improve the retention of pilots in the RAF. [152713]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The retention of pilots is a critical problem, not just for the RAF but for other armed forces around the world. Many pilots choose to leave the services at an early opportunity to pursue a second career with civil airlines. Improving pilot retention rates is therefore one of our highest priorities. Indeed, that was reflected in the announcement of the armed forces pay award for 2001, which, in addition to a 3.7 per cent. increase in basic salary for all ranks, will result in increases in flying pay. There will also be the introduction of a targeted financial retention incentive for RAF aircrew of up to £10,000 available for two years, linked to a commitment to continue serving. The scheme is an interim measure pending the outcome of the comprehensive review of aircrew retention that is being initiated.
    Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the response that he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Retention levels decreased to an all-time low in 1996, and the measures that he has introduced are welcome. However, can he assure me that the matter will be kept under constant review, and that new measures will be introduced as times change and they become necessary?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are also in discussions with other NATO countries on sharing experiences of the issue. Additionally, we believe that some of the other measures that we have highlighted today, particularly those on accommodation, will help to assist with retention.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made over the weekend on radio and television by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the likelihood that foot and mouth originated from the illegal importation of infected material, have you had a request for a statement by him to the House? The matter is extremely important and must be cleared up. Indeed, there is a need for a ban on the importation of all such meats from all countries that may be affected by foot and mouth.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from the Minister.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the past hour, the Minister for the Armed Forces and some other Ministers have given particularly long answers not to supplementary questions, but to the initial questions. They will have been reading those answers from their brief. Will you advise Ministers and their officials that such written answers should be shorter so that hon. Members can ask more supplementary questions?
Mr. Speaker: I could also advise some hon. Members that their questions should be shorter

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: Second Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999—2000 (Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the draft Regulatory Reform Bill), HC 488; Third Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999—2000 (Further Report on the draft Regulatory Reform Bill), HC 705; and First Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 2000—01 (The Handling of Regulatory Reform Orders), HC 328.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.33 pm
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  All Governments regulate to protect consumers, the environment, employers, employees, and society as a whole. The Government were elected on principles of fairness, justice and equality of opportunity, and those are the principles that we have put into practice in introducing fair and effective regulation. That is not about red tape or petty bureaucracy. The Government have no need to apologise for legislating for decent holiday entitlement, safety in the workplace, or policies to make work pay, such as the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. Those are commitments that we made in our manifesto, and they are commitments that we have honoured.
  Despite arguments made by Opposition Members when we introduced a fair minimum wage, jobs have not been lost. Introducing the working families tax credit has not lost jobs. Introducing proper maternity leave has not lost jobs, nor has taking action to tackle discrimination against the disabled. On the contrary, as we saw last week, for the first time in 25 years, United Kingdom unemployment has fallen below 1 million. We have a healthy and stable economy, with low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. I am proud of the action that we have taken and of what has been achieved.
  As so often in politics, however, it is essential that we strike the right balance. Unnecessary or over-complicated regulation that is difficult to enforce is a burden on everyone. It stifles enterprise and limits opportunity. which is why we have taken active steps to ensure that the regulations that are introduced are necessary, simple, and easy to understand and implement.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady said that the Conservatives had predicted a loss of jobs as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. Does she recall that at that time the Labour party was promising a minimum wage of £5? Will she now say what the current level of the minimum wage is?
  Marjorie Mowlam: We are not here to discuss the details of the minimum wage; we are here to discuss regulation and its reduction. The Tories always claim that they would reduce regulation, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), a Minister in the previous Government who tried to reduce regulation, said:
  "We would be the first to say that we did not do very well".— [Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c.250.]
  Moreover, in December 1987 the Institute of Directors said:
  "The excessive burden of regulation on business is halting growth and preventing companies from entering new markets…every year the Government has added to red tape".
  Before the hon. Gentleman gets into the detail of what we have introduced, it would do no harm if he looked back at what the Conservatives did.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The national minimum wage is a great point of principle. I would have thought that the Conservative party, rather than arguing about whether it supported a particular rate of pay, would accept that this is the first time in the industrial history of this country that a large number of low-paid women have been taken out of poverty wages. The House should be proud of that.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution; the minimum wage helped poor women, but Conservative Members keep trying to use the figures to inflate the cost of regulation. They and their supporters have quoted figures amounting to anything from £5 billion to £13 billion, but those figures include the administrative costs and the actual costs of the policies. Including the cost of paying the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit, and of administering other policy changes, boosts the costs of bureaucracy in a gross, unfair and misleading way. The real cost of administering Government policies is a fraction of what the Conservatives have suggested.
  As so often in politics, it is essential to strike the right balance. No one wants unnecessary, over-complicated and burdensome regulation. We have taken active steps to ensure that what regulations are introduced are necessary, simple, and easy to understand and implement. I chair a panel on regulatory accountability whose key task is to scrutinise Departments' regulatory proposals and ensure that they meet that high standard. I call Ministers to come to the panel and justify their proposals if the panel thinks that they do not meet its criteria.
  In the Cabinet Office, the regulatory impact unit operates across government to ensure that Departments make a thorough appraisal of the costs and benefits of any new proposals or regulations, and to suggest changes and improvements wherever it can. Departments now have to produce regulatory impact assessments across the board. The Government are aided in that by two powerful advocates at the heart of government. The Small Business Service, set up in April last year, is headed by David Irwin
  24
  and includes an independent council of outside experts to advise on the specific needs of small firms. The better regulation taskforce, headed by Lord Haskins, was set up in September 1997. Its members are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds, including business, consumer organisations and trade unions. Each organisation can voice concerns about regulation and seek improvement. It would be fair to say that Lord Haskins, in particular, has not shied away from making public some constructive criticisms when he thought it necessary.
  Mr. John Redwood: Since the Government came to power, there have been more than 300,000 net job losses in manufacturing. The textile industry is one of the sectors that has been savaged by the Government's policies. Is the right hon. Lady seriously asking us to believe that all the Government's efforts to raise its costs have had nothing to do with the job losses? Does she not see that some people have gone from low pay to no pay, partly as a result of massive over-regulation?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I was focusing on the 1 million extra jobs that have been created. That is the important point for people who have no employment, and now many more people have jobs. When people have been out of work, getting a job snakes all the difference.
  The Bill is another tool to help the Government simplify and improve the quality of regulation. I welcome the support given to the Bill from all parties in the other place. We are grateful for the contributions made in debates there by many noble Lords and for their constructive approach to amending the Bill. I think that their contributions have improved it.
  I hope that a similar constructive engagement will be possible during the Bill's passage through this House. It is, after all, designed to build on and improve the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, passed by the previous Government.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Government's intention is to build on the 1994 Act, will the right hon. Lady tell us what efforts the Government have made to use it? How many deregulation and contracting out orders were made in the year prior to the May 1997 general election, and how many have the Government made in the past year?
  Marjorie Mowlam: My recollection is that we have used the legislation about 10 times. That is not an excessive number, but it shows that there is a need to reform the 1994 Act, to extend its powers and to make it clear, so that it can be used more often.
  Mr. Brian White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the hype regarding the 1994 Act was overblown?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago, an Opposition Front Bencher asked a question of the Minister, and we did not have the answer. I can give it: there were 37 orders up until 1997.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady give way on a point of information?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I have already taken interventions on that point, and I should prefer to move on.
  The important point is that the Bill is based on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which was passed by the previous Government I am waiting to see whether Opposition Members will point out that we voted against that Act.
  Mr. Lansley: We will.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Good. I will be waiting for that point, because my answer is that we needed to change the 1994 Act to make it workable. We are using it as a basis for the Bill. We need to update the Act because, among other things, its powers are limited to pre-1994 legislation; it cannot remove burdens from the public sector; it does not allow subsequent amendment of deregulation orders, which limits its scope; and it defines regulatory burdens too narrowly.
  I shall give the House an example. The Government want school governing bodies to be able to offer after-school child care, which they can do at present only if they provide education at the same time. The Act does not allow positive change to address such problems. It is simply common sense that it should be possible to change the law to allow people to do things just as it is possible to change the law to stop them doing things. In updating and improving the 1994 Act, we recognise the importance of maintaining tough, clear safeguards. The Bill itself is an example of how we want to proceed
  Mr. Lansley: Perhaps now I will make the intervention that the right hon. Lady anticipated, because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did indeed oppose the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading, on the basis that the powers that were to be taken were exceptional and excessive. If the Government believe that those powers are no longer exceptional and excessive, will she accept that they were introduced for a specific purpose—that of deregulation? Will she admit to the House that the purpose of this Bill is not deregulatory but re-regulatory?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. For the reasons that I gave earlier, the Bill is necessary to build on and improve the Act passed by the previous Government.
  Mr. Steen: I shall help the right hon. Lady by telling her why the Bill is needed. Up to 1997, 37 orders were repealed; in 1998, the figure was only five; in 1999, it was four; in 2000, it was one, and in 2001 only one
  26
  order has been repealed. Something needs to be done to change the law. The view of Conservatives Members is that these changes are not the ones that are needed.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to hear from Conservative Members what changes they think necessary. I have outlined our changes, which stem from the work that we have done. We have provided the Library with a list of 50 measures—
  Mr. John Bercow: Fifty-one.
  Marjorie Mowlam: We changed the number to 50. All those measures could be taken under the new Bill. In addition, we have today issued five consultation documents on orders that will be made possible by the Bill and, between them, bring benefits of almost £40 million. The estimated compliance cost for those orders is nil.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, but this is the last time because I am making very little progress.
  Mr. Lansley: If this is to be the last time that the right hon. Lady gives way, she ought now to provide us with the killer fact. If the benefit that she seeks to achieve through the Bill is a reduction of £40 million in the regulatory burden, will she remind the House what has been the cumulative impact of additional regulation introduced by the Government since May 1997? The latest calculation by the British Chambers of Commerce is that the amount is more than £10 billion. Will she put the two figures side by side and tell us whether or not this is a regulatory Government?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Earlier in my speech, I gave the answer to that question. The costs that the hon. Gentleman quotes include the entitlements and benefits that individuals received through the changes that we introduced and the bureaucracy involved in implementing them. The real costs are a fraction of that figure. We shall not apologise for the costs of introducing the minimum wage, improving maternity leave, giving people holidays and working to ensure that discrimination against people with disabilities does not happen. I shall not apologise for any of it and if the costs of the policies themselves are set aside, our regulatory costs are much, much less.
  In addition, we introduced the legislation after listening to the views of business, business groups and consumer groups, and changes were made. As a result, it was introduced in a way that did not cost jobs. Exemptions were made for smaller businesses and most businesses were happy to acknowledge that the legislation was valuable to their work force.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Will my hon. Friend give me a minute—perhaps two or three minutes?
  Orders made under the Bill will be subject to thorough consultation and examination by scrutiny Committees in both Houses. The process will not avoid scrutiny.

  27
  The deregulation Committees in both Houses are serious, efficient and competent bodies and the scrutiny will be up to a high standard. Legal safeguards, including the European convention on human rights, will need to be satisfied for each order.
  In addition, before introducing a proposal, Ministers must be confident that the benefits of removing a regulatory burden are sufficient to justify the order being made and that the order maintains any necessary protection and does not remove any rights or freedoms that people could reasonably expect to continue to enjoy.
  When proposing to introduce burdens, a Minister must also be confident that the order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the individuals affected by it and that any burden imposed by that order must be proportionate to the benefit to be had, to the satisfaction of the scrutiny
  Committees.
  In addition to those safeguards and consultation requirements, the order will be subject to careful scrutiny in Committee in both Houses and will proceed only if both Committees report favourably. That procedure has worked successfully to date in relation to the 1994 Act and I trust and believe that it will continue to do so.
  Mr. Pike: I chair the Deregulation Committee. Is my right hon. Friend surprised to hear that no Conservative Member chose to attend its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill? Is she also surprised to hear that Conservative Members no longer consider themselves to be members of the Committee? I wrote to the Conservative Chief Whip asking him to replace them, but even though the Conservative party considers deregulation important, that position has not changed.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Those important points show the commitment of Conservative Members, and I look forward to a comment from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on that intervention.
  Mr. Steen: I would like to make a comment. As a member of the Deregulation Committee, I can tell the House that only one deregulatory order has been made this year. Last year, only one was made. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows that he does nothing, and the Committee does nothing. The Bill is being debated to give them something more to do.
  Marjorie Mowlam: With those safeguards in place, and for the Committees concerned, let me outline some of what we might wish to do under the Bill that is not possible under the 1994 Act. Situations often arise in which, with the passage of time, legislation has become outdated and no longer fits people's day-to-day needs. Anomalies develop and it simply no longer makes sense.
  For example, invalid care allowance can be claimed only by people between the ages of 16 and 65. Why stop at 65? People often carry on caring beyond that age, so we want to change the law so that over-65s have a right to claim too. We also want to make changes so that in circumstances where the person being cared for dies, the allowance will continue to be paid for up to eight weeks to allow the carer time to come to terms with the loss.
  28
  We propose to make changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme to reduce the disability threshold and to allow minors the opportunity to claim right up until the age of 21.
  As a final example, we would like to take important steps to relieve the burden on NHS charities, which currently have to submit their accounts twice to two separate Government bodies. That is not common sense; by making a simple change, we will help those charities to keep down significantly their administrative overheads and to make the most of donations given to them by the public.
  Those are just a few examples of what can be done; there are many, man others. Today, we published a list of 50 measures that could be delivered, and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
  Mr. Bercow: Read them out.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to read them, I shall do so with pleasure. [Interruption.] I have left the list in my office; what bad luck. [Interruption.] I have been passed a copy; I do not want to disappoint the hon. Gentleman if he wants to hear them.
  For the hon. Gentleman's benefit the measures include: the abolition of 20 partner limit; after-hours child care at schools; approval of local education authority curriculum complaints procedures; attachment of earnings; births and deaths—Wales; births and deaths—errors on certificates; bootleggers—disclosure of names, for Customs and Excise; building regulations; business tenancies; civil registration service reform. I think that I have made my point.
  In addition, we issued five consultation documents today that will make possible, under the Bill, benefits of almost £40 million. We are consulting on orders—I shall give specific examples for the hon. Gentleman—to simplify, speed up and make fairer the procedures for new business leases; to
  put lease renewals for local authority tenants on the same looting as those for business tenants; to make it easier to a low pubs to open for longer on new year's eve and on the Queen's golden jubilee; to improve the grant and loan an arrangements for the renewal of private sector housing; and to allow people to use bank notes and smart cards in gaming machines.
  Mr. Graham Brady: That is important.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Some of the measures may not be crucial, as the hon. Gentleman implies, but what is important is that the legislation makes sense—that is one of the reasons that we are introducing the Bill. Regulation should not be burdensome; it should be easy to implement and should protect rights while not making heavy demands on business. That is what good government means. The Bill is no incredibly large, but it will improve the services we offer the public. That is important—it does not matter how small the changes are, as long as they benefit people.
  Mr. Steen: The right hon. Lady looked at me when I reacted to her remarks on gaming, so it is only right that I should respond. I served on the Committee for a long

  29
  time and it often struck me that a great number of the rules and regulations that we were repealing had to do with dancing and gambling, as if this country spent all its time dancing and gambling. We can dance on Sunday nights; we can gamble with a Switch card or a smart card. We must take care that the Bill does not merely encourage more and more gambling and dancing.
  Marjorie Mowlam: It would take more than the Bill to increase dancing and gambling. Even though I have doubts about some forms of gambling, I think that dancing and fun are good for our society.
  The estimated compliance costs for the measures that I outlined are nil.
  As well as looking at where we can simplify or streamline regulations, we are also considering how to improve enforcement. Sensible enforcement—not going over the top—is a key part of good regulation. That is why the Government are working with local authorities and those responsible for enforcing central Government regulation to agree to a concordat— [interruption.] This is an important point. The concordat will offer a blueprint for fair and common-sense enforcement.
  We hope to have 100 per cent. of the bodies that we are working with signed up by the summer. It is a voluntary process, which we hope succeed, but if there are cases where an improvement in enforcement practice is needed, the Bill contains a reserve power for Ministers to make codes of practice on enforcement for the benefit of business and the citizen.
  As was done in another place, I trust that hon. Members will agree that the Bill will provide a valuable tool for this and future Governments to use in the fight against unnecessary, overlapping and over-complex legislation. It has already been welcomed by many people outside the House. For example, the Institute of Directors said that it is a
  "good Bill…if it is used to its full poteritial, [it] should make a noticeable difference to the red tape burden '.
  Mr. Lansley: If.
  Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to cite the Conservative party's record, he will find that he is not in a strong position to criticise.
  Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry said:
  "The Bill has the potential of providing he tools to deliver real benefits to business".
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No.
  The Federation of Small Businesses believes
  "that the Bill will be useful in helping to reduce the overall burden on business".
  Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association has given strong support for the powers in the Bill and its potential for
  "reducing the burden of central regulation on local authorities".
  We value those expressions of support, but the real test for the Bill will be the reforms achieved under it in the months and years ahead.
  30
  Contrary to some press reports, the United Kingdom is not a heavily regulated society. Independent reports, such as that from the Economist Intelligence Unit in spring last year, show that we have the least regulated labour market in Europe. Similarly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's economic outlook, published in December 1999, said that the United Kingdom had he lowest level of product-market regulation of any OECD country.
  We can be proud of that record, while being proud of the fact that the Government have introduced important measures to safeguard the interests of consumers and employees and to protect the environment. It can no longer be said that social justice— the minimum wage, decent holiday entitlements, decent maternity pay and working benefits—is incompatible with economic efficiency, low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates. It has taken this Government to show that, and it is a record of which I am proud.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords] because it seeks to extend the use of powers intended solely for a deregulatory purpose to the creation of new burdens and to the rewriting of legislation without a specific deregulatory effect; and fails to apply sufficient consultative, scrutiny and review provisions to the exceptional powers proposed."
  I listened with growing amazement to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because this is a regulatory Government, as is shown by their record, on which she sought to base her accusations about the previous Conservative Government. Indeed, they are one of the most regulatory Governments that we have had for a very long time. That stands in absolute contrast to everything that the public and the business community were told before the election.
  In April 1997, in a document entitled "Labour's business manifesto"—which seems to be a contradiction in terms—the Labour party pledged
  "not to impose burdensome regulations on business, because we understand that successful business must keep costs down."
  What have we discovered since then? In December 2000, the CBI published its own analysis, which stated that the Labour Government had introduced 3,000 new regulations, that regulations were being introduced at the rate of 10 a day in 2000 and that those regulations had cost the business community £23 billion since the election.
  Mr. White: Is it not true that 3,000 regulations were implemented in the final year of the previous Conservative Government?
  Mr. Lansley: The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said that about 3,000 to 3,500 regulations and statutory instruments are passed each year and, in an article in The Times in November 2000, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office said that only about 5 per cent. of them have a direct impact on business. Let us leave aside the fact that many of them have an indirect impact but, even if the figure of 5 per cent. is correct, that means that 175 of the statutory instruments

  31
  passed each year have a direct impact on business. Furthermore, they come on top of the 175 that were passed in each of the preceding years.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to understand what is happening under this Government, let us consider the rate at which red tape is impacting on business and on small businesses in particular. Small businesses are acutely vulnerable to the impact of burdensome regulations, and members of the Government never seem to be aware of that fact—I guess that they never run a small business. Perhaps some of them do so. In recent days, we have discovered that one or two of them have been engaged in business on their own account, but I shall not go into that.
  The rate at which the cost of red tape is increasing has gone up. Each year, the Institute of Chartered Accountants conducts a survey based on information obtained by its advisers who conduct and prepare the accounts of small businesses. It uses their expertise to consider the cost to businesses each year of implementing the new regulations that were introduced in the preceding year. In October 2000, the institute showed not only that the regulations increased the costs of small businesses by an average of 4 to 6 per cent., but that for the smallest and micro businesses the rate at which those costs increased nearly doubled in the year to July 2000 compared with 1999.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at various stages over the past four years, some Ministers appear to have been so unfocused that they were unaware of what their own Government were doing? In particular, is he aware that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said in what proved almost to be his swan-song that
  "we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms.— [Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
  Which planet was the right hon. Gentleman inhabiting?
  Mr. Lansley: I concur with my hon. Friend's observation. I have been interested in what Ministers seem to be unaware of, and there are two explanations for the statement of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The first is that it has become part of his stock in trade—indeed, that of the Labour Government—to say one thing while doing something completely different. It is not that Ministers do not know what is happening, but that they want people to believe that something else is happening. They want the public at large not to understand that manufacturing and business experience daily the problem of increasing red tape.
  The second explanation for the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that in November 1998 he was otherwise engaged busily raising money for the dome, for which he was responsible at that time.
  Marjorie Mowlam: If we are considering issues of which folk are aware, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Small Business Service, which we set up. It specifically focuses its work on assisting small businesses with regulations. We have extended the periods in which regulations are implemented and we have given audit exemptions by raising the threshold from
  32
  £350,000 to £1 million, which has saved small businesses £180 million a year We have taken a number of other initiatives. I will not bore the hon. Gentleman with them now, but they do not suggest that this is a Government who do not take the needs of small businesses into account.
  Mr. Lansley: The Small Business Service amply illustrates the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and with which I agreed. The Government set up the Small Business Service with the objective that it would be the British equivalent of the Small Business At ministration and would act as a powerful engine to represent the small business community inside government.
  I have news for the right hon. Lady. She and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may not have noticed that the business community sees the Small Business Service as no more than a repackaging of what went before. In the enterprise component of the training and enterprise councils, business links and various other bodies, the Government sought to impose initiatives on the business community. They have not allowed the business community to take ownership of the service in the way that the previous Conservative Administration intended.
  The right hon. Lady seems to think that I am personally responsible for everything that the previous Conservative Administration did. She should know that as leader of the deregulation taskforce, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made it clear that, in his view, the Conservative Government were making limited steps towards deregulation. At the same time as we were trying to introduce a substantial number of deregulatory measures, the cumulative burden of regulation was continuing to increase. That is why we have the policies that we have, which I shall deal with shortly. On that basis, she should understand that this Government have gone badly in the wrong direction by increasing dramatically the cumulative burden on businesses.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman waxes lyrical about small businesses and the burdens that have allegedly been imposed on them since 1997. I am sure that he will agree that most farms, with the exception of agri-businesses, are small businesses. How many livestock inspectors were there in 1992 under the previous Government, and how many were there in 1997?
  Mr. Lansley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those precise figures, but a deregulation contracting-out order relating to the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 removed duplicate requirements for the licensing of slaughterhouses. He should know that in the year up to the last election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) made clear to the Minister, the previous Conservative Government introduced 26 deregulation and contracting-out orders. The pace of deregulation was growing. This Government introduced five such orders in the following year, four in 1999, one in 2000 and only one this year, which is a sad record.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—will he take my word for it?—that the number of livestock inspectors decreased between 1992 and 1997? Deregulation is not always in the interests of small business.
  Mr. Lansley: We all understand that deregulation has to be balanced. That is why the previous Administration were pursuing deregulatory measures while occasionally introducing regulatory measures. The hon. Gentleman seems unwilling or unable to accept the fact that the cumulative burden on business is a significant part of our competitiveness. It is no good Labour Members talking about the positive aspects of specific regulations without taking account of the context within which each regulation, which they regard as attractive, adds to the burden of the total costs on business.
  At the last election, the Labour party said that it understood that burdensome costs should not be imposed on business, but the burdens barometer of the British Chambers of Commerce sets the total cost of burdens at £10 billion-plus. The analysis published for Politea by Nicholas Boys-Smith shows that the annual cost of this Government's regulations since 1997 will be £12.7 billion by May 2001.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the directives on working time, maternity leave and part-time working and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 put burdens on business that, if elected, the Conservatives would remove?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman simply adds to the same point. Let us consider those measures—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I will respond to his question.
  It is pretty straightforward. My argument is twofold. First, undesirable and unnecessary regulatory burdens have been imposed: for example, the burden of trade union recognition—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—yes, and the way in which that was done. It is clear that the threshold at which trade union recognition was introduced extends the requirement down to small businesses that, in effect, have no personnel function. Labour Members should understand that the way in which that requirement was imposed will act as a major additional burden on small businesses that are not equipped for trade union recognition.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lansley: Let me complete my point before doing so.
  There has been a string of such measures, including the working time directive. We had no choice about the implementation of the working time directive in this country, although the previous Conservative Administration tried to frustrate it The way in which it was introduced—with a lack of lead times and a lack of clarity in the regulations that it imposed—was extremely damaging to business. In examining the costs and benefits of implementing the working time directive, I meet many business representatives. When I ask about their experience, most reply that they incur massive administrative costs and that most employees simply opt out of the directive's effect. Therefore, the costs are large and the benefits small.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. Small businesses employing fewer than
  34
  20 people are exempt from legislation on trade union recognition. The job of the Small Business Service, which he quickly dismissed, is to consult small businesses, and each regulation is considered to ensure that small businesses do not suffer.
  Mr. Lansley: I have to take issue with the right hon. Lady. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce says that his research shows that only 21 per cent. of firms with fewer than 50 employees have a dedicated personnel resource, whereas the figure for firms with more than 50 employees is 71 per cent. It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to talk about firms with 20 employees, but a more appropriate threshold for trade union recognition would have been 50 employees or more.
  I question not the principle of trade union recognition, but the appropriateness of the way in which the requirement was introduced and the threshold that was set, given that the impact on small businesses has been disproportionate. The Government say, "Think small first", but they simply did not do that. Through the costs that it imposes on small businesses, the directive is having an effect on competitiveness.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lansley: Let me provide a couple of summaries to which I shall invite the Minister to respond. Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry says of the Government:
  "They have a track record over three years of being one of the most regulations-keen administrations for some time".
  Chris Humphries of the British Chambers of Commerce says:
  "Despite all its rhetoric, the reality is that Government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness. Excessive red tape is stifling the very enterprises the Government is seeking to promote".
  Mr. Stringer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that setting a threshold of 50 employees would exempt about 98 per cent. of all businesses in this country? If he is so concerned about small businesses, will he explain why there has been a net increase of about 150,000 in the number of small businesses since the Labour Government took control, whereas there was a net decrease in that number between 1990 and 1993?
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister simply does not understand the argument as business understands it. He will know that I am a former deputy director general of the British Chambers of Commerce; it was my job to represent small businesses and to understand their position. They know, as I know and he should know, that businesses constantly face the question of what will happen as the economic cycle turns down. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer has no more abolished the economic cycle than any previous Chancellor has been able to. British business most needs to be competitive when it competes in declining domestic and overseas markets. A few months ago, a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey showed that, compared with the average of EU businesses, two thirds

  35
  of UK businesses' relative advantage in competitiveness had been lost during the four years of the Labour Government.
  Such competitiveness is easily eroded and is difficult to regain. I am afraid that we will not begin to discover the damage done by the Government until businesses start to struggle and lose. Manufacturing businesses that are exposed to international trade have already discovered it; businesses in the service sector that are dependent on cyclical changes in demand will, unfortunately, discover it when the Chancellor's tax and spend policies take us down that unhappy path.
  That is why, on 5 March, Forbes Magazine could, unfortunately, publish an article for an international readership, in which it said that the Government were
  "quietly loading the British economy down with new taxes and regulations that threatened to erode the advantages of doing business in Britain".
  Under this Government, we have discovered that the rate of regulation has gone up, as demonstrated by the survey of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and other work. The position is getting worse, and deterioration is accelerating. Legislation has grown increasingly complex; Conservative members of the Committee that considered the Finance Act 2000 are only too aware of the immensity of financial and tax legislation and the complexity imposed by it.
  Too often, consultation is a dead letter. The business community, for example, will have seen that the Prime Minister was so keen on consultation on the work-life balance that, before it concluded, he was prepared to pre-empt it and make announcements at the Labour party's spring conference in Glasgow. Regulatory impact assessments, as provided for by the Government, have been wholly inadequate. They have not been independently audited and are highly subjective, reflecting Ministers' need to try to justify their legislation.
  The right hon. Lady talked about policy costs on the one hand and implementation costs on the other. Regulatory impact assessments are highly confusing and tend to muddle policy costs and implementation costs. They tend to exaggerate benefits and underestimate costs. Most of all, the Government's record on regulation demonstrates complete unwillingness to recognise the cumulative effects on the business community of the regulations that they have introduced and continue to introduce.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stay in the real world. We have not exaggerated benefits. We have independent business people working alongside us on the regulatory impact assessments and in the taskforce. If, like the hon. Gentleman, they felt that we had done such a terrible job and had failed, they would tell us. As I acknowledged earlier, Chris Haskins criticised one or two measures. Overall, however, our work has been welcomed.
  Rather than criticise us using figures with which I do not agree, the hon. Gentleman would do much better to do what we have been doing in Europe—try to work with other member states to make sure that there is not an additional burden from Europe. We are working with other European countries, both bilaterally and in the
  36
  Mandelkern group, to make sure that, by the time we get to Stockholm, we have a level playing field on European regulation. That is much more important than the hyperbole that we have just heard.
  Mr. Lansley: There is no hyperbole here, just simple facts. The right hon. Lady has come to the House to introduce a Bill designed, she says, to build on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I have demonstrated that the Government have no interest in deregulation; frankly, Labour Members had no interest in the 1994 Act. Before the election, large numbers of orders were made and the pace was increasing. Since the election, however, the pace has diminished to the point at which virtually no deregulation and contracting-out orders are being made.
  The Government blame the lack of candidates for such orders. The reality is that there is a lack of will; the Government have no will on deregulation.
  Mr. Steen: I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in mid-flow, as he is making rather a good speech, but does he intend to come on to the Bill itself? We are listening for that. I want to ask him some questions about it, and I did not want him to sit down without my having had that opportunity.
  Mr. Lansley: Clearly, I gave my hon. Friend the impression that I was engaged in a peroration. There may be those who wish it, but I was not. I was simply seeking to demonstrate that we cannot trust the Government on the subject of deregulation and regulation. They wear deregulatory clothes while engaging in a regulatory objective.
  The Bill is intended by the Government, in the dog days of this Parliament, by their lights, to persuade the business community that they have a deregulatory purpose in mind, whereas the business community knows, from its unhappy experience, that regulation is what the Government intend, sometimes to the point at which the utilities, for example, are experiencing nationalisation in a different format.
  The Bill is a transparent example of such activity. It is about regulation, perhaps as the new Labour alternative to nationalisation, whereby the Government can get control of businesses without having to pay the price for doing so.
  Marjorie Mowlam rose—
  Mr. Lansley: I have given way many times. I shall make progress as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes wants to hear some views about the Bill, and I shall be happy to supply him with some.
  We oppose the Bill and we have tabled a reasoned amendment. I shall tell the House why. The Bill is not a deregulatory Bill. It is designed to create new burdens. It is designed to allow the public sector to reduce its burdens, while it imposes burdens on the private sector. It is designed to allow the public sector to undertake additional expenditure in legislative form, without the usual scrutiny that is applied to legislation for that purpose.
  The Bill lacks provision for the necessary external consultation. Most of the important information on proposals would be presented only at the point that they

  37
  went before the Deregulation Committee, but that information would not necessarily be given to the business community and all those who would be affected, who ought to be the principal participants in a consultation process before deregulation committees sit.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the acid test of the Bill is whether, if it had been enacted, it would have prevented the Government from wasting £628 million of public money on the millennium dome?
  Mr. Lansley: I am sure that the answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, the Bill would not have prevented that. However, I believe that the acid test is: if the Bill had been enacted and the Government had had the benefit of it, what would have been the practical result?
  Mr. Redwood: More regulation.
  Mr. Lansley: I hear the answer from my right hon. Friend from a sedentary position. The Bill would have resulted in more regulation. Moreover, the Government found that in the previous Session they had a crowded legislative programme. They found it difficult to introduce primary legislation to suit their legislative purpose, so not only have they resorted, as we know, to the routine guillotining of Bills and the constriction of parliamentary debate, but now they have found a new mechanism that allows them to amend primary legislation, bring in new regulations and take on new responsibilities for the public sector, all by means of a statutory instrument that amends primary legislation without all the scrutiny that should be the product of our parliamentary process.
  The right hon. Lady thought that I would intervene on the subject of the Labour party's attitude to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill during its passage through the House. The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke on Second Reading about the power that was to be taken in that Act. He said:
  "Ministers would be able to repeal full Acts of Parliament by statutory instrument. There would be no Committee stage in which the measure was considered line by line. Statutory instruments cannot be amended; they have to be accented or rejected as they stand. There would be no Report stage in which new clauses could be considered. The House would have to accept the priorities of the Minister who presented the order."—[Official Report, 8 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 158.]
  That is an exceptional power. It is a Henry VIII power. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman described the 1994 Act as a Henry VIII Act. The power is exceptional and should be used only for the specific purpose of limiting the burden that the public sector and the Executive impose on businesses and private persons at the risk of crushing them under an increased weight of regulation. It is vital that the specific and exceptional power to remove the role of the Executive in respect of burdens on private persons should not be perverted and turned into a power that imposes on private persons an additional series of burdens without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
  Mr. White: I am confused by the hon. Gentleman. A few minutes ago, he argued that the Government had not used the powers enough, but he is now saying that we are using them too much. Which argument is he advancing? Does he believe that use of the 1994 Act should be limited, or that we should be using it far more than we are currently?
  Mr. Lansley: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have confused him. My proposition is straightforward.
  38
  The 1994 Act established an exceptional power to amend large amounts of primary legislation by introducing secondary legislation, but it did so for the specific purpose of deregulation. The current Government have not used that power, although they should have done, and are now seeking to extend it not to deregulate but to impose new burdens and to give the public sector far wider powers.
  Mr.Pike rose—
  Mr.Kilfoyle rose—
  Mr. Lansley: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) will forgive me, I shall give way first to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Deregulation.
  Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the previous Parliament, the then Opposition recognised that the procedure worked positively and accepted that it did not have the effect that we feared during debate on the legislation? Does he further accept that there was unanimity on all 37 repealed orders, and that we did not disagree on a single one?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have no problem with that, which is why I did not suggest to the Minister for the Cabinet Office that the Labour party had executed a U-turn since the 1994 Act took effect. The point is, however, that the Act conferred a power for a deregulatory purpose. In the Opposition's view, the power should be confined to that purpose and used to achieve it as effectively as possible. It should not be extended to the wider aim of rewriting primary legislation to suit the Government, who may use it to introduce more regulation.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the paucity of orders under the current Administration, but does he accept that in the early days of the 1994 Act the easier targets were obviously those that went before the relevant deregulation committees? One of the lessons learned was that it became progressively more difficult under that legislation to deal with many more outstanding orders than were already being dealt with. Thus, a Bill was needed to regularise the procedure. Does he accept that that is one of the driving purposes of the Bill before us?
  Mr. Lansley: At the risk of repeating myself, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the powers provided by the 1994 Act were not increasingly less capable of being used by the previous Conservative Government before the election. Indeed, that is why I referred specifically to the year leading up to May 1997. I recall that 23 orders were presented in those 12 months and that the current Government presented only five in the following year. If the Government have used the power less since the election, it is because they do not have the necessary will.
  Mr. Stringer: We are getting to the kernel of the issue. First, does the hon. Gentleman accept that any order that is passed must have a deregulatory element? Secondly, will he acknowledge that regulatory regimes are a burden in themselves and that the 1994 Act could not deal with the issues that they create?
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister takes me to the point that I wanted to reach. We oppose the Bill in principle, but we

  39
  acknowledge that changes were made in the House of Lords. One such change requires an order made under the Bill to have a deregulatory purpose; the Government did not originally intend that. They intended that such a purpose could be placed alongside new burdens, the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies or the lifting of constraints on public sector expenditure. As long as a Minister—a Labour Minister, in the opinion of the Labour party—decides that the consequent benefit outweighs the cost, the additional burdens can greatly exceed the reduction and removal of burdens through some other provision in the order.
  Marjorie Mowlam rose—
  Mr. Lansley: Nothing in the Bill—perhaps the Minister for the Cabinet Office will tell me otherwise when she intervenes—requires a net reduction or removal of burdens as a result of an order made under it.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman suggests that every change will lead to more regulation, but some changes will decrease it. The Bill will not allow Ministers to do exactly what they want. They will have to consult the scrutiny Committees, which have a strong record of having an independent voice on deregulation. If there is any doubt, the issue can be discussed in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman tries to suggest that the Bill provides for bypassing Parliament and allows Ministers to act unilaterally; that is not the case.
  Mr. Lansley: The right hon. Lady takes us to the heart of the matter. The Conservative party does not trust the Government with such a power. At the next election, we aim to remove them. After the election, I hope that we will have a Government who have the will and the way to reduce the burden of red tape on business, instead of the current Government, who are interested in imposing additional burdens.
  A Bill is required, and I do not dispute that changes to the 1994 Act might be beneficial. However, they should be used for a specific deregulatory purpose, as our reasoned amendment makes clear, not for additional regulations or creating new burdens. We have the political will and a way to achieve that. A deregulation agency independent of Government should be established to make the regulatory impact assessment. The assessment should not be conducted subjectively inside Departments. The agency should have the power to block proposals rather than simply to offer Ministers advice on them, and to introduce measures on which Ministers have to act. Our Administration will be determined to impose regulatory budgets.
  Marjorie Mowlam rose—
  Mr. Lansley: I shall give way shortly, but the right hon. Lady will not distract me from explaining what business genuinely requires. It needs a Government who are committed to the progressive reduction of its total burden. Regulatory budgets are the only way to achieve that. The cumulative effect of the additional burdens that the Government have imposed damages our competitiveness, and we must remove them. That means
  40
  an independent audit, which leads to regulatory budgets. If additional regulations are necessary, they should be introduced through sunset clauses so that if the costs are higher or the benefits are less than predicted, the regulations can disappear. There should also be longer lead times before introducing new regulation.
  The Government's deathbed conversion after four years of regulatory excess will convince no one. The Conservative party has a commitment, a will and a way to achieve deregulation. Only the Conservative party would achieve that. We will not support the Government's desire to use the exceptional powers of the 1994 Act for the wider purposes of re-regulation, creating new burdens and giving the public sector advantages at the expense of the private sector.
  Mr. Steen: I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's elucidation of one point. The Bill has two parts: expansion of the powers of the Select Committee on Deregulation and enforcement. As I understand it, the enlargement of the Deregulation Committee's powers, which will allow all sorts of matters to be brought before it, is really a gold-plating of the Deregulation Committee. It will give it extended powers. Does my hon. Friend see that as gold-plating?
  The Bill's enforcement powers give people at local level the right of appeal to a Minister, which would bypass the legal system. If a local business was not happy with the decision of a local authority's enforcement officer, it could make an appeal directly to a Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would make the Government judge and jury on such matters, and that that is another reason why the Bill is unsound?
  Mr. Lansley: It might be as well for my hon. Friend to expand on those matters if he catches your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  On the second part of the Bill to which my hon. Friend referred, I believe that, on balance, the introduction of codes of practice is not wholly a bad thing; it can be positive.
  Marjorie Mowlam rose—
  Mr. Lansley: We consider regrettable—speeches were also made to this effect in the House of Lords—the removal of any power for Ministers to use a statutory enforcement to ensure that codes of practice are complied with, if enforcement authorities fail to abide by them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) says that I should give way to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I have done so several times, but as she was courteous in giving way to me, I shall give way to her again.
  Marjorie Mowlam: At last we have heard from the hon. Gentleman some of the proposals that the Opposition would introduce in place of the Bill. He suggested an independent deregulatory commission. The House would be interested to know whether that would be more costly and bureaucratic than the regulatory impact assessments that we have now. He also suggested regulatory budgets. How would he prevent that provision from becoming a new layer of complex bureaucracy, leading to further delays in introducing legislation?

  41
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested sunset regulations. That is not a new idea; we have already introduced them on two Bills. However, we believe that they should not be part of any order, but assessed on a case-by-case basis. Finally, Baroness Buscombe, on the Front Bench in the House of Lords, said on Second Reading that the Conservative party would not oppose the Bill in principle. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why his party's view has changed between the House of Lords and the House of Commons?
  Mr. Lansley: A number of points have been raised, and the right hon. Lady took advantage of that intervention to make a speech on the subjects, dictated by Millbank tower. She knows that it is the practice in the other place not to vote against legislation on Second Reading, and we did not. I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Buscombe and Lord Kingsland on the Bill in the House of Lords. It was their intention to secure substantial changes to the Bill, and some were made. However, it is our responsibility to examine the Bill as it is presented to the House of Commons, and we believe that it is, in principle, objectionable to extend the use of this power in the way that the Government propose.
  On Second Reading in the House of Lords, we had some hope of positive amendment. Unfortunately—such are the habits of the House of Commons—it is now incumbent on us to oppose the Bill in principle because it is our unhappy experience that the Government are deaf to good argument in the House of Commons, and unwilling to accept our arguments of principle. There is, therefore, very little likelihood of our obtaining a positive and constructive response, however we might present our argument.
  We shall oppose the Bill in principle. We shall also make it clear that, however it has been amended in the House of Lords, it remains a Bill designed to use a power intended for the specific purpose of deregulation for the wider purpose of re-regulation and the creation of new burdens. That would free up the public sector at the expense of the private sector, and do nothing to roll back the regulatory excesses of this Government. It will, therefore, fall to the Conservative party, after the next election, to introduce legislation to achieve the deregulation that business needs and desires so much.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: First, let me put one or two things on the record.
  As I am sure my Front-Bench colleagues will agree, the regulatory impact unit worked hard to produce the Bill. In a remarkable variety of guises, it has done a marvellous job over a long period, under the last Administration as well as this. I also pay tribute to the work of Lord Haskins and his taskforce. Lord Haskins has never shrunk from saying things that may not have been palatable to Ministers at certain times, and he has certainly been forthright in expressing his views on the need for better regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and Lord Weedon of Alexander have played their part—
  Mr. Bercow: Lord Alexander of Weedon.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I stand corrected. I am confused by titles, not least those of Members of the other place.
  42
  Those whom I have mentioned are people of character and distinction, who have worked very hard to make the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 a workable proposition.
  Mr. Bercow: I look forward to hearing the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which, judging by precedent, I expect to be both interesting and entertaining.
  The reason I was so quick to intervene is that Lord Alexander of Weedon is a former resident of my constituency. He is a fine man, and Weedon is a fine village.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that that is true, but it does not necessarily mean that Lord Alexander is a friend of the present Government in political terms, although he has worked assiduously on this issue and many others like it.
  It is all too easy to make glib, cheap political points on the back of a serious attempt, made over a long period, to turn legislation that was plainly not as workable or effective as it should have been into legislation that is workable. I have the doubtful distinction of having spent some time in the Cabinet Office working on these matters, and I was amazed at how complex and arcane they could become. I also represented the Cabinet Office on the legislation committee. Conventions relating to confidentiality prevent me from saying too much, but my role—doubtless performed by someone else now—was to act as gatekeeper in regard to legislation before it was presented to either House, and to ensure that a proper regulatory appraisal took place, including a compliance cost assessment. The process was effective in ensuring that certain pieces of legislation were altered to provide a full and transparent description of what would eventually obtain following the passage of that legislation. No doubt someone performed a similar role under the last Administration.
  At one stage, there was agreement among all parties that we needed to do much more to make legislation effective in terms of its ostensible purpose. The result, in my view, is the Bill that we are discussing now. However, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has illustrated, things have moved on considerably over the past four years. Not only have the Government been extremely successful, introducing many worthwhile social and economic initiatives in both Houses; the whole approach to regulation has changed.
  Initially, all references were to deregulation. When we took office in 1997, we changed the term to "better regulation". That was not an exercise in simple semantics. It sent out a strong message a la Chomsky: changing the language meant capturing the argument, which was not about taking away regulation per se but about recognising that there is good as well as bad regulation. We were intent on doing all we could, where there was a social necessity for us to do so, to ensure that regulation remained strong and enforceable, but was also understood by both individuals and businesses. By the same token, we recognised that there was superfluous legislation that was no use to man or beast, and should be removed—and we attempted to do that as well.
  As the speech of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire showed, there is a different agenda on the Opposition Benches nowadays. Conservative Members have adopted a very right-wing position and have moved

  43
  far out of the mainstream of traditional British politics. They believe in a minimalist state. Their soul brothers in America, the Republican party, would endorse everything that they stand for—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is nodding. If they had their way, Conservative Members would remove almost every vestige of regulation.
  I am particularly concerned about the regulatory and legislative spheres that Conservative Members seem to dismiss. In this debate, I want to hear what they have to say about—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will hear it.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that I will be hearing from the hon. Gentleman and from other Conservative Members. I want to hear their comments on the types of regulation that are very important to people in this country, such as health and safety regulation. What proposals do Conservative Members have for that? I should also very much like to hear with what they propose replacing necessary legislation. I assume—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire says that we have already heard it. What we heard was an addendum to a political diatribe on how Labour Members could not be trusted in government. Conservative Members are paranoid about proposals from Labour Members, to whom they impute base motives where none exist. Apparently, according to them, in seeking to pass the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Government are trying to circumvent the House entirely—to frustrate the will of the House. I tell them that the will of the House will be demonstrated after the next general election. I dare say that we shall all still be sitting on the same side of the House.
  Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Deregulation Committee's procedures allow for much more extensive consultation and discussion on delegated legislation than such legislation would receive if it were dealt with under the usual procedures of the House?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I accept that unequivocally. As I understand it—I stand to be corrected either by the Opposition or by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—there has been extensive consultation on the Bill. As I recall it, there was a draft Bill and an opportunity to resolve the issues. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire signally failed to substantiate his claim that no opportunity has been provided to the individuals whom he has quoted as being concerned about the Government's approach to regulation. As I think my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, Digby Jones has welcomed our initiative. As one might expect, the Local Government Association has also approved it, as have Ian Handford at the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Institute of Directors. Presumably, they have approved the initiative partly because of the Government's extensive consultation with all parties on the draft Bill.
  I can only assume that Conservative Members are opposing the Bill for broader political advantage. There is nothing wrong with that. I think that we all play that game—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says yes. I agree with him.
  44
  There is nothing wrong with that. We had hoped to tackle the very real and complex problems of dealing with regulation consensually with the other parties, but if that is common cause, they have certainly not lent their support to promoting it.
  I remind Opposition Members that for every regulation that the previous Administration removed, they introduced 13 new ones. Things have not changed an awful lot in that respect. One difficulty is that we have to deal with an ever more complex world. A simplistic, minimalist approach will do nothing to cure those problems. We have to take the type of action that my right hon. Friend adumbrated in her speech. We have to ensure that people have access to transparent advice, and that they understand that something can be dealt with in just one visit, without a plethora of inspections. Those issues are being addressed in long-standing initiatives, but there are no simple, straightforward answers.
  The Bill builds upon experience and seeks when possible to improve and streamline the regulatory processes. I applaud the Bill, and I applaud my right hon. Friend's initiative in introducing it.
  4.55 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I call Mr. Norman Baker.[Interruption.] I am sorry; I mean Dr. Vincent Cable.
  Dr. Cable: I am not sure whether that is a compliment or not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I start on a positive note: I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that too many of the wrong kind of regulations have been made, and propose to do something about it. However, although it took the Conservative spokesman half an hour to get round to saying so, there are serious constitutional problems with the Bill. Those are the issues that my colleagues, particularly Lord Goodhart, tried to deal with in the other place.
  To do justice to the problems, one need only look at the language that the Select Committee on Deregulation initially used about the Bill—although that language has subsequently been modified. The Committee, which I believe is all-party, expressed itself in trenchant terms about some of the potential problems with the Bill.
  For example:
  "There are few limits to the power in clause 1 of the draft Bill to amend existing legislation…The proposal could allow much of the legislative programme to be implemented by orders rather than by bills".
  The Committee goes on modestly defining its own capacity to act as a constraint on the legislation:
  "from our own standpoint we do not consider—however flattering it might be to do so—that the fact that we carry out this work to the best of our ability within the existing framework is lasting protection against the misuse of the extremely wide powers now proposed".
  That was written by an all-party group which will have the responsibility for carrying through the powers in the legislation, so there are serious constitutional problems. I sincerely hope that in what will probably be the rather short time allowed for consideration of the Bill in Committee, those issues will be properly addressed.

  45
  As for the substantive issues of deregulation, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) put the point well when he said that regulation was neither inherently good nor inherently bad. There is good regulation and bad regulation; there is excessive and unnecessary regulation, and there is necessary regulation. It is a question of costs and benefits, and of striking a balance. There are good reasons why activity has to be regulated, such as consumer protection, environmental protection and workers' rights. Those are entirely plausible, good economic and social reasons why regulation has to exist.
  Indeed, much of the spurt in regulation occurred under the previous Government, as a consequence of privatisation. If one creates private monopolies and networks, there has to be a structure of regulation to manage them and oversee them in the social interest. Regulation is not inherently undesirable; the question is how regulation is managed.
  There has been a tendency, which is not particular to the present Government but which has accelerated while they have been in office, towards regulatory creep—a growth in regulation for undesirable reasons.
  There are three phenomena that we must try to understand. First, it is increasingly becoming the habit of Governments to regard business as a useful agent for carrying out their own policies—policies that they could have paid for and carried out themselves. For example, the working families tax credit makes businesses act as an arm of the Department of Social Security, and businesses now also have to collect repayments of student loans. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, business has to act as a spy agency for Government, without being fully compensated. That also happened under the previous Government, through the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Liberal spokesman for giving way to me, but when he talks about "regulatory creep" does he have in mind all those Liberal councils that are trying to regulate us off the roads and stop motorists using their cars? That is not so much creep as complete standstill and chaos. Does the hon. Gentleman endorse that kind of madcap regulation that stops people going about their daily lives—or do we need a Bill to stop it?
  Dr. Cable: I have a Liberal Democrat council in my area, which is introducing traffic-calming measures funded under a special scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. The scheme attracted a fairly wide measure of cross-party consensus. Much of the use of business as an agent for the Government has occurred under this and the previous Government, but the trend has certainly gathered momentum.
  The second issue, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has contributed substantially, is tax complexity, which has been referred to on many occasions and of which the climate change levy is a good example. The levy's objectives—to reduce emissions, particularly carbon emissions—are perfectly desirable. They could have been achieved in simple ways but in fact the implementation has been very complex, with numerous exemptions. One example that was referred to me this
  46
  morning will, I am sure, eventually come to the attention of Ministers. Launderettes, which have to pay VAT on energy at the full rate—as opposed to households with washing machines—now have to pay the climate change levy as well. People who use launderettes—students in particular—tend to be relatively poor. They are being penalised in a completely arbitrary way as a result of a complex piece of legislation whose consequences were not thought through.
  The third way in which regulatory creep has occurred is through gold-plating. It is common and fashionable to blame the European Commission for some of this, but much of the gold-plating occurs in Whitehall. It occurs for complex reasons which I hope we will go into at some stage in the Bill's proceedings.
  One of those reasons is the way in which parliamentary legislation is drafted. The whole system of parliamentary draftsmanship contributes to the complexity of regulation. Another, rather important, reason is that unlike countries such as Holland or Denmark, we do not have any common ground or consensus between employers and employees. Because there is a lack of trust and of consultation, everything has to be spelled out in enormous detail.
  The working time directive serves a very admirable purpose. It is entirely desirable that workers should not be forced to work excessive hours. The difference between the British system, which I think has 75 pages of explanatory memorandum, and the Dutch system, which has one, is that in Holland it is possible for employees and employers to sit round a table and work out a modus vivendi without officials having to prescribe every detailed item of the administration.
  Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that in Holland the people sitting around the table can understand the language that is used, which is not interfered with by parliamentary draftsmen?
  Dr. Cable: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not need to elaborate on it.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) described the working time directive as admirable. Does he accept that matters to do with the regulation of working hours are pre-eminently issues with which democratically elected members of the British legislature should preoccupy themselves, and that they are most certainly not matters for supranational authority?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree on the fundamental principle of whether the social chapter should be a national or transnational piece of legislation. However, that is incidental to my fundamental point, which is that, whatever the underlying authority, the British have chosen to implement the directive in an interventionist, messy and complex way.
  How far is it necessary to achieve the Bill's objectives through new legislation rather than in other ways? There are many ways in which the Bill's objectives could be accomplished through administrative action. For example, a fundamental problem confronting many small companies is the enormous number of inspections that have to take place. I believe that it is possible, under various statutes, for 300 different kinds of inspection by various agencies, not just the Health and Safety

  47
  Executive, to take place. That number has increased by about 50 per cent. over the past 20 years. Much trouble could be saved if small businesses had to deal with just one inspector at the Health and Safety Executive. Such an administrative change could be accomplished through Government agencies without new legislation.
  Many of the objectives of legislation could be accomplished through voluntary legislation backed up by general statute. An obvious problem, which the Government have grappled with, so far unsuccessfully, is that of cowboy builders. Most of us have constituents who have paid several thousands of pounds to have their drive tarmacked; six months later, when a large crack appears in the drive, the constituent rings the company only to discover that it has disappeared. How should we deal with cowboy builders? The problem is not a lack of competition—there will probably be 40 names listed in "Yellow Pages". The problem is that one does not know which of those people learned their trade in the local TEC and which of them learned it in the local nick. There must be a mechanism by which standards can be upheld.
  A sensible way to do that, without being over-prescriptive, would be to have the profession of builder recognised by Parliament and the detail of consumer insurance and training decided by the Federation of Master Builders or a comparable body. That could be done voluntarily, in the same way that the British Medical Association oversees the medical profession. Many of the objectives of regulation could be achieved without over-prescriptive and highly detailed legislation.
  The Bill raises major constitutional issues. My colleagues in the other place tried to address those and feel that they have helped to improve the Bill, but some issues remain. One is the lack of clarity about the organisations that can claim to suffer excessive burdens. I understand that the provision can apply to the public sector as much as to the private sector. If a Department or a local council wants to be exempted from regulations, it will be able to use the Bill in the same way as a private company. That will cause all kinds of problems that are not related to deregulation in the sense that we have been encouraged to think about it. How will the Bill prevent Departments from simply obstructing or ignoring the powers that Parliament has bestowed?
  The second issue is proportionality. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has already made the point that regulations give rise to issues of cost and benefit. We must ask whether the additional burdens of regulation or, in some cases, deregulation are offset by compensating benefits. How will that balance be measured? How will costs and benefits be defined in the Bill? In the other place, an attempt was made to encompass the idea of "desirability", although I am not entirely sure how that common-sense word can be used in a legal context.
  The third and most important point is how we prevent large, controversial measures being introduced under cover of the Bill. Clearly, many small changes, such as the 50 listed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office may well be highly appropriate, but who will define what measures are controversial? How will a limit be set so that the Bill is not abused?
  48
  I accept that in many cases regulation is necessary and desirable for environmental and social purposes. However, we must ask whether it is necessary, what burdens it imposes and what its costs and benefits are. If the Bill provided a workmanlike mechanism for reducing excessive legislation, I would welcome it. but I suspect that it contains hidden constitutional traps about which we need reassurance.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and I certainly support the Bill. It is an important step in enabling us to introduce more deregulation and to tackle many of the problems found by the Deregulation Committee since its inception, following the introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
  I was very disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), particularly in view of the fact that in the other place the Bill was not opposed, even at its final stage. I understand his argument that, traditionally, the Lords do not vote against Second Reading and that they try to scrutinise and improve legislation. However, having done so with some measure of success and having amended the Bill, they accepted it and sent it to this House to be debated and scrutinised in accordance with the normal procedure.
  Having read the Opposition amendment, I am concerned that their view is that the Bill
  "fails to apply sufficient consultative, scrutiny and review provisions".
  That is absolute nonsense, and it fails to recognise what has happened since the passing of the 1994 Act. That failure can be traced back to our reasons for opposing the Act: we were outraged by it and said that it was Henry VIII legislation under which Parliament's ability to debate proposals made under the Bill would be bypassed. However, when the Act was implemented, we on the Deregulation Committee found that that was not the case. Indeed, everybody has found that the proposals have resulted in deregulatory measures being dealt with in such a way as to be subject to better consultation and better scrutiny. The procedure is better than tagging measures on to big Bills.
  Some Departments and their officials perhaps have not made more use of the legislation because they fear that the scrutiny and treatment of proposals would be much more rigorous, and on several occasions the Committee has sent proposals back to the Home Office. I held the position of Vice-Chairman and the Chairman was Barry Field, who was the Member for Isle of Wight. We met Ministers and officials to give them a severe dressing down, because we felt that some proposals were not being dealt with in accordance with the 1994 Act.
  Mr. Lansley: It is no criticism of the hon. Gentleman's Committee that the Government have not chosen to put orders before it, nor is the reasoned amendment a criticism of the scrutiny carried out by that Committee. It is a criticism of the Bill.
  We believe that the Bill is inadequate because the proposed consultation outside Parliament is inadequate. Scrutiny is also inadequate because of the limits on the nature of the material to be provided in the document to be laid before Parliament; and notwithstanding what the

  49
  Minister of State, Cabinet Office in the other place said, the review of the overall effects of the legislation and of the extent to which it should continue to be used is inadequate too.
  Mr. Pike: I understand what the hon Gentleman says, but his remarks are misjudged and give a mistaken impression of the Bill. However, we are debating that matter here and there will be further debate in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman's view is that the Bill will add to regulation, not deregulation. Importantly, however, two main changes dealing specifically with that point were made in the other place, and such matters were of concern both to the Deregulation Committee and to its opposite number in the other place and Lord Alexander of Weedon, its Chairman. There is excellent liaison between the Committees and their members maintain a good relationship—they know what we are doing, we know what they are doing and the two Chairmen correspond. Although we do not always exactly agree, we try to work together to ensure that we are doing the job that we are there to do.
  In all fairness to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who will make the winding-up speech, he told the Committee that the Government, after further consideration, would accept amendments in the other place to change and improve the balance between regulation and deregulation, and we were glad to hear that. As a result, amendments were made in clause 1 to introduce a major restraint; it is now essential that provision must be included so as to reduce or remove burdens. There will therefore be a balance, so that the main purpose is the consideration of such reduction or removal. That point is extremely important.
  Clause 3 was amended to prevent new burdens, unless a Minister is satisfied that there has been an overall reduction of the burden or that there are
  "other beneficial effects for persons affected"
  In the view of the Committee, those amendments meet many of the earlier criticisms of the draft Bill.
  There has been no example of a better scrutinised draft Bill. There has never been better liaison between the Department that produced the Bill and the Committee that considered it in draft. A consultation paper was issued. The Committee made known its views to the Government. They responded, and the Committee replied to that response. We then considered the draft Bill. There has been every opportunity to express our views.
  There may not have been 100 per cent. agreement with every provision, but the Government have moved a long way and have taken cognisance of the constructive proposals made by the Deregulation Committee. Indeed, last week we produced our first special report of this Session—"The Handling of Regulatory Reform Orders". That follows the publication of a report by the Lords Committee after the completion of the Bill's passage through that place.
  I am the only Member who has been on the Committee since it was established—I joined it on day one—and I am not sure whether that is a reward or a punishment. I have chaired the Committee since 1997.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) referred to the number of proposals that the Committee had considered before the last general election. However, most
  50
  of them were of little importance; they generally dealt with measures on gambling and bingo. Indeed, the first proposal that we dealt with was for the reform of betting on greyhound racing, allowing people to bet on the Tote—off the track. The Committee visited Walthamstow race track to see what the proposal involved. We had a meal there and were told which dog would win the last race. Disappointingly, it did not, so deregulation certainly did not guarantee the Committee a winner.
  At one point, I even asked a parliamentary question asking whether our Committee was a deregulation Committee or a gambling and bingo Committee, because most of the measures that we dealt with before the election were on precisely those matters.
  All along, the Committee has said that it is time there was some uniformity of age as regards soft gambling—for bingo, lottery tickets and so on. We have still not achieved that, so there is more to be done.
  The most important measure that we dealt with was one that most people would not even notice—banks and cheque truncation. That measure was to be implemented in two stages—I am not sure whether the second has been fully implemented—and it means that when a cheque is paid into one branch it does not have to go back to the branch where it originated. In these days of modern technology, it was nonsense for millions of cheques to move around the country every day. That must have cost financial institutions—and, ultimately, their customers—a great deal of money.
  Our original fears about how the legislation and the Select Committee would work very soon proved totally unfounded. As I said in an earlier intervention, we did our job strictly as any Select Committee would do. At the end of the day, after a lot of debate and discussion on some issues, we reached unanimous decisions on every item that we considered before the election. Indeed, in all our time as a Committee, we have divided on only one measure. We did so after the election, on a measure about which the employers and the trade unions agreed, involving a change in the trade union check-off provisions—but the Opposition decided to vote against the proposal at the last minute.
  The Committee already provides good scrutiny. It is a good system; it has been proved to work, and good consultation is tied up with it. There is a good procedure of reporting to the House and debating any matter on which the Committee divides. Indeed, the House had to debate the check-off provisions because the Committee had divided on them. That was totally different from the procedure of European Standing Committees A and B when they were set up. They could amend a Government motion, but the Government could still table the original motion in the Chamber, and the House would have to agree to it without debate, forthwith. That is nonsensical, because the fact that a Committee has amended a motion should be reported to the House. Of course the Government always have the right to reamend the motion so that it states what they originally wanted. When I was a member of European Standing Committee A, I thought it nonsense that its proposals could be totally ignored and a motion different from the one agreed could be tabled in the Chamber, and agreed with a Division, if necessary, but without debate. So the Select Committee's procedure is good.

  51
  Right from the day after the general election, when I became Chairman of the Select Committee, its view and that of all my hon. Friends has been that it has not had enough business. The Committee has been disappointed about that and has tried to ensure that more proposals come before it. Indeed, we have met every Minister who has been involved, and they share our concern; they also want more proposals to go before the Committee.[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) laughs, but that happens to be true.
  The Labour party is in favour of doing something, but the participation of Conservative Members on the Committee has been almost nil. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) nods, because he has taken a full part in the proceedings from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Indeed, I wrote to the Conservative Chief Whip, because the Committee was extremely worried that the Conservative Members were not taking part in its proceedings. One Member no longer wants to be a member of the Committee, but has not been replaced to this day. So, far from being advocates and campaigners for deregulation, the Tories have been backward in that work.
  The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), was concerned from the start. Indeed, we looked at the position, and it was agreed at a fairly early date that a consultation paper should be issued. Unfortunately, that was not done as speedily as one would have hoped, but it was ultimately issued. I met my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), when he was the Minister dealing with deregulation issues, and he too was anxious that we should increase the Committee's work load and encourage more Departments to put matters before it.
  One of the effects of the Committee's not having enough work is that its staffing has been reduced—not in calibre, but certainly in number. That point must be addressed if the Bill makes progress and if the Committee's work load increases.
  The Committee called my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields to give evidence and we had a good evidence-taking session. The chairman of the better regulation taskforce, Lord Haskins, also came before us to give evidence and the Committee produced a report.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was replaced, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) took responsibility for deregulation. He was also concerned about the position, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), and the latter came before the Committee before this Bill was introduced. The Bill is a result of all the steps that have been taken over the years, so it is important to examine how we reached this stage.
  The Committee considered the possibility of a Bill and published a report. In due course, a draft Bill was introduced; my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office appeared before the Committee and we considered the draft Bill in a useful evidence-taking session. In May 2000, the Committee published its second special report. The Government considered the report and produced their response and, quite rightly, the Committee examined their views. We did not agree with everything
  52
  that the Government had said, so we produced our third special report outlining a few points that we wanted the Government to note.
  When the Bill was introduced, it was clear that the Government had not taken account of everything that the Committee had said, but some of our key points have since been accepted. Amendments made in the other place take the Bill very much nearer to what the Committee wanted, and we welcome the positive approach that the Government have adopted. They have not taken a rigid view and they have been willing to consider other views and accept improvements to the Bill. I and my Committee welcome that.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Committee was a little concerned by the Government's lack of commitment to an annual review of the Bill's operation? It is an important Bill, and although the Committee said that it would carry out an annual review, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better if it were carried out far more publicly by the Government?
  Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; I was going to touch on it in my speech. It is clear that the Committee was not 100 per cent. happy with what the Government said. The latter have moved and said that they will carry out a review after three years to see how the Bill is working. That review will be published and debated, but the Committee has made it clear that it intends to produce an annual report. That is legitimate. I do not know who will sit on the Committee after the general election or who will chair it—the new Committee may take a different view. However, I hope that it will take note of our reports.
  The Government are aware of the differing views. Indeed, I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary about them in the Division Lobby and mentioned them to him last week when we had finalised our report. They are not confidential. The Committee has a right to its opinion, which I accept is slightly different.
  The other place amended the Bill. It is now closer to what the Committee wanted. We certainly welcome that. Assuming that the Bi11 receives early approval and Royal Assent, the Government must act speedily to ensure that it is implemented. Initially, the measures will be contained in two pieces of legislation—the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the new Act. I understand that the Government intend to introduce three proposals next week, which I shall deal with shortly. The measures to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred are being consulted on and will be part of the new legislation.
  I have touched on staffing resources. That will need to be dealt with speedily so that the Committee can carry out its work efficiently. We have always been served by excellent Officers of the House, but we will need sufficient staff to cope with the amount of work. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of the matters with which the Committee might have to deal. Indeed, they are listed in an annexe to the Committee's first special report which was published last week. They are a response to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and they relate to issues that the Government have every intention of addressing at an early date.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Committee's regret at the paucity of deregulation proposals that it received. Has it had an opportunity to consider the 51 proposals that have been mentioned by Ministers in relation to the new power and examined whether, and to what extent, those could have been introduced as part of the 1994 Act?
  Mr. Pike: We have not done that; perhaps we should have. However, the list has now been published.
  We have spelled out our opinion on producing reports. It is an extremely important job. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that the report makes it clear that we intend to conduct an annual review. If need be, the Committee will call a Minister to give evidence. That could be the Minister with responsibility for deregulation or a departmental Minister. We have the power to do that and to consider particular failings. We may, of course, decide that the Government are doing an extremely good job and are giving us too much work to do in the new Parliament.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) will want to refer at great length to paragraph 13 of our report. It reiterates the need
  "to produce legislation comprehensible to those affected by it".
  However, the Government have not included such a provision in the Bill. The report continues:
  "If the Bill is not amended to this effect" —
  let us assume for the moment that it will not be—
  "we (and, we trust, our successors) will nonetheless scrutinise all future proposals and draft Orders with these objectives in mind, and will expect Ministers to do the same."
  I hope that Ministers will take note of that. Reference has been made to legislation in Holland. We want to have legislation in this country that is clear and understandable. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has pursued that issue both in the Committee and in the Chamber, but he is not the only one who is concerned: many hon. Members on both sides are concerned about it.
  Three proposals are to be tabled next week. It is important that Ministers recognise that, once they have been tabled, the Committee clock starts to tick. We have a specific number of days in which to consider the proposals: all days count, including weekends, unless the House is not sitting for more than four days; therefore the timetable stops for the duration of an election, but restarts on day one of the new Session. I mention that because it means that the Committee must be established with all possible speed after the general election if it is to be able to carry out its responsibilities under the Bill.
  The first special report also proposes a new name for the Committee and provides some draft Standing Orders. Our attitude to our draft Standing Orders is not rigid; we have published them to provide helpful guidelines, in the hope that they will be taken into account by those responsible for formulating Standing Orders, as they too will be required fairly speedily if the Committee is to carry out its work. We propose that the Committee's name become "the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee",
  because we believe that "the Deregulation Committee" will not adequately describe the work of the new body.
  54
  I welcome the Bill as a move in the right direction. The 1994 Act has proved too tight and too rigid for the amount of work.
  Mr. Lansley: I should be interested to hear the Committee's and the hon. Gentleman's personal view on precisely what is too tight in the provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. The comments of the Minister for the Cabinet Office suggest that if the purpose is deregulation, the only real restriction is imposed by section 1(5)(c) of that Act, which limits the measures to which orders can be applied to those that were enacted in Sessions up to and including the 1994–95 Session. Would it not have been simpler to amend that provision than to engage in a wholesale extension of the power?
  Mr. Pike: I do not accept that view. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman appears not to have listened to the opening speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and that Conservative Members did not take part in scrutinising the Bill. The second special report of the 1999–2000 Session addresses those very issues, as does the previous report. Anyone who becomes a member of the Committee on the Bill will, during the few days available to that Committee, find the Deregulation Committee's reports an extremely useful aid to constructive debate on the legislation.
  Before I gave way, I was making the point that the Bill will open the door to more deregulation. Finally, to answer the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, from day one the Committee found that one cannot deregulate without putting some other regulation in place. We want sensible, workable and better regulation, and the Government have tried to achieve that. We all want to remove unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that serves no useful purpose. Even when the Committee was under the chairmanship of my predecessor and had a Conservative majority, almost every time we looked at a proposal, we found that we had to replace deregulation with something else to make the system safe and secure, and protect those from whom we were trying to remove burdens.
  I fully support the Bill; I shall certainly vote for it and against the reasoned amendment at the end of our debate.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
  What a sad testimony we have just heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), the Chairman of a Committee that once rejoiced in the title of the Deregulation Committee. I am delighted that he was so honest because one thing became crystal clear in his long narrative: the Government do not believe in deregulation. They are not at all apologetic for the massive increase in regulation in their four years in office. They have left the Committee entirely devoid of purpose. We saw a rather pathetic image of members of a Commons Committee sitting around having meetings and writing letters to members of a Lords Committee, who were also sitting around having meetings, because they had nothing else to do, and wondering if they could have more meetings together.
  Mr. Ian Stewart rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I should like to make one little point, but shall then be delighted to give way.

  55
  We then heard that if there were a serious chance of any deregulation emerging, the Committee would need a massive increase in staffing because, poor things, its members were already enormously overworked. The only argument against the Conservatives was that some of them did not always turn up. I am not surprised, given that the Committee was boring and did nothing; I am sure that my hon. Friends had better things to do with their time.
  Mr. Stewart: If boredom is the criterion to which we pay attention, I fear that many Labour Members would leave every time that the right hon. Gentleman stood up to speak. However, on a serious note, if a Commons Committee has concerns and wishes to share them with a Committee in the other place, it would be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman's team to be in Committee to add its voice. Conservative Members were not in Committee and they did nothing; the country knows that.
  Mr. Redwood: For four years, the Conservative team has put across strenuously and consistently the message that the Government are over-regulating, not deregulating. My right hon. and hon. Friends on, and beyond, the Committee would willingly give of their time to work on serious deregulation. The truth is the Government have no interest in that and have no proposals.
  Today, we heard the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee make one serious proposal to the House: the Committee should be renamed—and, no doubt, rebranded with a new logo at considerable expense to the taxpayer—thus letting the secret out to the world at large that it cannot deregulate, does not want to deregulate, does not know how to deregulate and has no idea why it should deregulate. Instead, it would like to join in the game of more regulation, more cost, more burdens, more trouble, always putting more impositions on the private sector in the naive belief that there will never be another bust when all around is plenty of evidence of plenty of busts in plenty of sectors.
  Mr. Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman genuinely think that rhetoric is a replacement for action? We have heard a lot of rhetoric from Conservative Members. When the Tory Government were in power they introduced as much legislation as the present Government—indeed, possibly more. May I emphasis the point that Conservative Members did not attend the Committee at the very point when they could have influenced the Bill? They had an opportunity to discuss it. They are wasting time talking about getting deregulation when they had a chance to influence things. To stand here talking is rhetoric, not action.
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that speaking in the House of Commons was a great privilege, and that speaking in the House about policies might persuade the Government to do something sensible. Earlier, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Cabinet Office Minister, make three proposals about a process for deregulation rather more sensible than the mean and difficult proposals in the Bill, which will undoubtedly backfire.
  The Bill has "3 May is election day" written all over it. The Government do not seriously expect to get the legislation through or to do any real deregulation, but
  56
  clearly, the runes have been consulted, the focus groups have been paid off, the polls have been plumbed, the Government have taken all sorts of factors into account, and they have discovered something that we have been telling them for four years: that the business community feels that it is massively overregulated.
  Much of that overregulation has taken place under the present Government—[Interruption.] The Liberals, in the form of the hon Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), are leaving the Chamber because they know that they are partly guilty, as the junior coalition partners. The regulations have built up massively under the Government. The business community does not like that. The famous peace or truce—
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way in a moment. I should like to finish the point, then I shall be happy for the hon. Gentleman to have another shy. It will not work either, but we are always willing to encourage talent, if only we could find some on the Government Benches.
  Too much regulation is being built up by this Administration. The business community no longer thinks that the Government are friendly to business, so they are in pre-election panic mode. The Cabinet Office has been asked to produce something that the Government can spin to persuade business that after four years of getting it wrong, they will get it right. The Government want the British people and the British business community to sign a blank cheque. The Government say, "Trust us. We now understand that deregulation is important."
  Mr. Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his courtesy in giving way. It may surprise him to hear that I understand and accept his protestations on behalf of private industry. However, it would be good to hear from him and other Opposition Members some protestation about sensible, appropriate and relevant regulation and how it protects workers.
  Mr. Redwood: I hope to give examples of measures that the Government have imposed that I should like removed, as they are totally unnecessary burdens. The Conservative party has always supported sensible regulation for employee conditions, and we are not proposing to scrap worthwhile protections for employees. It is a matter of balance and degree. An avalanche of regulation and taxation has been thrust at businesses. A £10 billion regulatory burden and a taxation burden of more than twice that sum have been added by this Administration. That is becoming the straw that breaks many camels' backs throughout British business.
  No wonder the Government want a general election on 3 May. It will not be long before all that comes home to people. Businesses will go bankrupt, businesses will shed labour, entire industries will get into worse trouble, and much of it will be the direct responsibility of Ministers and Labour Members, who willingly imposed tax after tax and regulation after regulation, to cause those troubles.
  Mr. Pike: When the right hon. Gentleman went to the Back Benches after losing the leadership election in the

  57
  previous Parliament, did he vote against all the additional tax burdens that the Conservative Government forced on business?
  Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that I produced a number of alternative proposals for less tax and less government. I have gone on to support an Opposition who clearly want to lower the tax burden, compared with the Government's very high one. That, surely, is the position of a sensible person who wants to make the case for a more prosperous country.
  I draw to the attention of the House a particular concern, in the light of the extraordinary clause 9, which deals with enforcement practice. Clause 9(1)(b) states:
  "the practice followed by enforcement officers in relation to the enforcement of the restriction, requirement or condition ought to be improved so far as fairness, transparency and consistency are concerned".
  Seemingly, the Bill sets out the need for a code of practice to try to improve the way in which Ministers regulate. I would be delighted if Ministers regulated more fairly, transparently and consistently, but it is extraordinary that they need to introduce a Bill to allow the House to impose on them a requirement to set out enforceable standards of conduct. Why are not sensible enforcement procedures already in place, and why do Ministers need legislative permission to introduce codes of practice that they could issue anyway?
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. I Friend speculated on why the Government are so keen to have the general election on 3 May. I suggest that it is because they know that the Bill is unenforceable. He referred to clause 9(1)(b). Does he realise that any clause that provides that a standard "ought to be" enforced is unenforceable in practice?
  Mr. Redwood: That may be the case, but my criticism of the Government is that they try to introduce so much legislation that is half-baked, ill-thought-out and inconsistent, and that lacks transparency. Furthermore, they keep changing their minds.
  One of the farmers in my constituency, Mr. Russell Butler, has a large number of sheep in fields that range over a 70-mile area. Last week, he needed to move the animals, but he came up against bad Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regulation. Presumably, it was exactly the sort of regulation that clause 9 is supposed to tackle, but we cannot wait for that measure to take effect. The Minister of Agriculture should deal with the problem today. Mr. Butler asked for permission to move his sheep, which, I am pleased to say, are nowhere near a confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease. He was told that he could not move them more than 5 km because of the regulations that were extant last week. He needed to move them over a greater distance, because his fields are spread out over a large area. The sheep on his grass were getting into considerable trouble. It is lambing season and he wanted to return them to the farm for the lambing to occur properly. Even if he had to leave them
  58
  out in fields, he wanted them to have grass to eat. The fields in which they had remained were getting muddy and the grass had worn out. Some of the fields—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will return fairly quickly to his point about regulation.
  Mr. Redwood: I am trying to illustrate the problem with clause 9 by citing a clear example of legislation that is muddled and lacks transparency. Perhaps a stronger measure than a code of practice is needed, but we cannot afford to wait for primary legislation, and my constituent, Mr. Butler, would obviously like to know that the matter is being taken seriously by Ministers and the House.
  Mr. Butler applied for information on whether there was anything else he could do. He was then told that the regulation would be changed during the week and that he could obtain a movement order because the restricted distance was to be changed to 15 km. He was told that the change would occur on Tuesday. I then intervened personally, as he wanted to move the sheep 15 miles and not 15 km. Subsequently, however, he was telephoned and told that he could kill all the sheep, even though they were perfectly healthy. He was assured that a licence would be granted for that purpose. Of course, that worried him considerably and caused me enormous concern. Before I had to intervene again, however, I was telephoned with an entirely different story. I was told that some time during the week, on an unspecified date, MAFF would lift any limit on the distance of movement for farmers in unaffected areas. In effect, I was told that my constituent could hang on in the hope that the regulation would be changed, although his sheep would probably starve to death on muddy fields in the meantime.
  I hope that you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that example deals with a point that is central to the Bill, as it demonstrates muddle, incompetence and lack of transparency. It also shows the lack of decent feeling for animals that could die because Ministers do not see—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can give an example, but as I have pointed out, he must return to the principle of deregulation.
  Mr. Redwood: I am happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Clause 9 states that enforcement should be fair, transparent and consistent. I agree with those aims, but why is such provision needed? Surely those conditions should apply now. Why should we introduce a Bill to make Ministers behave transparently and consistently, when that is how they should behave now? What is wrong with them? Why do they have to rely on the Minister for the Cabinet Office—one of the less dangerous people among them—to introduce the Bill? They are introducing legislation in the hope that, if they stay in government, they will at some stage introduce codes of conduct on regulation. However, we have seen in all too many instances that they have no idea how to regulate sensibly, how to be open and honest or how to leave people sure of what is required.
  I have spoken about agriculture and I shall not bore the House with more examples. Business men and farmers want fair, proportionate regulation. They want to know

  59
  why it was arrived at and what they need to do to comply with it. How can a farmer comply with a regulation when he is given three different versions of what he should do? Should he kill his animals, or wait in the hope that he can move them a shorter or a longer distance? We need immediate action on such issues.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the explanation of the Government's appalling failure on regulation can be found in the two characteristics that the six Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and three Cabinet Office Ministers in the House have in common? First, none of them has ever run a business or worked in one, and, secondly, they are all fanatical European "federasts".
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the nature of the Bill. He spoke about lack of consultation, but there has been unprecedented pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill was published last October and was the subject of extensive consultation. He said that it was a last-minute measure, but that is patently incorrect. He suggested that the provisions had not been costed, but they have been, in comparison with his Government's costings. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke about an independent deregulatory commission and a regulatory budget without telling us why his proposals would not create greater budgetary and administrative costs. It would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman could describe such costs in his meandering speech.
  Mr. Redwood: I think that the Minister wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, as her points relate to his speech rather than to mine. I gave way to her because I always do so if time permits, and I hoped that she would feel like defending the Government or would have something better to offer to my constituent and to the many farmers throughout the country who want proper regulation. The Bill concerns not only deregulation, but better regulation. Indeed, the main burden of the provisions is amendment of the 1994 Act to allow the Government to use similar powers to increase regulation, rather than diminish it.
  Mr. Stringer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the clause 9 provision to which he referred is lifted word for word from the 1994 Act, which he supported when he was a Cabinet Minister? Why does he not support that measure now?
  Mr. Redwood: I have made it clear that I fully support the Bill's principles in that regard, but why is the Bill needed to achieve what should be happening now? When we consider the chaos and confusion caused by lousy regulation in agriculture, we are desperate for an immediate solution. We need to know how many animals must be killed and why. If the Government have settled on such a policy, we need to know whether the killing can be carried out more quickly, so that the risk can be reduced, rather than increased.
  60
  Those are today's anxieties in respect of better regulation, but the Bill does not sort them out. I do not challenge the principles of regulatory reform. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, I supported those principles—fairness, transparency and consistency—in 1994, and I still support them today, but I want action, rather than more words on a piece of paper that is merely a pre-election stunt that demonstrates no understanding of the seriousness of what is occurring in the countryside or in businesses elsewhere
  I should like to move away from agriculture and clause 9, and consider earlier clauses.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we consider suffering farmers or business men who are burdened with over-regulation, the primary problem is not the regulation but incompetence? The countryside is especially affected by the incompetence of Ministers and managers. The Government are saying that the ship is heading towards the rocks and that we must therefore give it a complete refit and change the engines when we need to change the officers on the bridge. That is all we need to do to help farmers.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He represents many more farmers than me, and he speaks with feeling and understanding from experience. He could also have said that many abattoirs were killed off by regulation, much of it from the European Union. The Government did not oppose it, and they are paying a high price in agriculture, partly because the closure of many smaller abattoirs requires more movements over long distances. I do not claim that that caused the outbreak, but it has made its spread more rapid and more difficult to contain.
  If we consider the number of businesses that are desperate for proper deregulation, we can understand why so many people will believe that the Bill is not man enough for the task. Let us consider fishing. Our industry is being killed off by common fisheries policy regulation, whose purpose seems to be to ensure that cuts in catch and quota are borne mainly by British fishing vessels to enable Spaniards and others to take the catch.
  Why do not the Government deregulate our fishing industry and press for re-regulation of the foreign fishing industry to change the balance? That is what our fishermen want. They understand the need for some overall controls, but sensible ones, not flinging dead fish back into the sea and believing that that will transform the position. They would like a fairer system that gives them more chances and the foreign vessels commensurately fewer.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: The previous Government signed the common fisheries policy, which largely led to the current position. The Government have done much to reform it. Also, the number of abattoirs more than halved in the two years before the Government came to office. The rural White Paper, which was published in November last year, pledged £8.7 million for abattoirs.
  Mr. Redwood: My constituents do not recognise the world that the hon. Gentleman describes. In their world,

  61
  European regulation considerably damages the industries that are most affected by it, and a supine Government provide soundbites about being at the heart of Europe and getting on frightfully well with our partners, while being unable to challenge them about anything or stand up for British fishing or agriculture. That has led to the most murderous reductions ever—and there have been all too many over the years—in the British industry's catches. If British fishing is to have a future, we need a Government who believe in the right sort of regulation and deregulation.
  The Bill will not help. I cannot go to a fishing village on my travels and say, "Great news. I was in the House of Commons on a marvellous occasion. We had a debate during which Ministers at last realised that European regulation is smashing the fishing industry, and they have introduced a measure to get regulation right." Ministers do not care; they do not even admit that there is a problem. Government Back Benchers are prepared to make foolish points, which will read badly in dwindling fishing communities around our coast.
  There is also the meltdown in telecommunications. Share prices have crashed and we have heard announcements that that glamorous and growing industry is about to suffer job losses on a big scale. That process began when the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a windfall tax of £22 billion on that successful industry. He perceived no irony in saying simultaneously that he would impose a massive licensing, tax and regulatory bill on the industry and that there could be a new economy with a faster growth rate. He said that there was a new paradigm, led by telecommunications and the dotcom revolution. He believed that it was a great idea to tax the industry to a dangerous extent. Now a bitter harvest is being reaped. The Germans foolishly followed that example; over-regulation took £50 billion out of a lead industry. That has led to difficult consequences in stock markets and telecommunications throughout the European Union.
  Mr. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he was elected in 1997 on a manifesto that supported the action that he has outlined?
  Mr. Redwood: I did not recommend that policy. I made a speech in the House explaining the difficulty. The Conservative party would not have modelled it as mathematically brilliantly as did the Government, who optimised the take and ensured that businesses were left short of cash and unable to make the investment in the next generation of technology as quickly as they should. I pay full tribute to the Chancellor's ability to take the right advice from a mathematical professor, and to ensure that he took most of the money and left nothing for new investment and new ideas. However that is not a success but a great failure.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: Willingly—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can do better than his previous intervention.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the halving of the value on the Nasdaq exchange in New York has much to do with profit
  62
  warnings by major American multinationals and little to do with the Government's sale of the spectrum, which brought so much money to the Exchequer?
  Mr. Redwood: I am talking about the United Kingdom. That is our country, where I have a constituency and represent people. The combined impact of the British and German auction is a major factor in the collapse of telecommunications share prices in Britain. As I explained, the German auction was modelled on the British version. Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that if a Government suddenly take £5 billion from the main participants in a successful growing industry that leads an economy, its growth will be damaged? The crucial companies in Britain were affected by that.
  John Robertson: As I worked in telecommunications for 30 years, I know a wee bit about it. BT has made exorbitant profits and given them to shareholders for many years. It has not invested them properly, and that has now come home to roost. The telecommunications industry—or the communications industry, as it likes to call itself nowadays—has been affected by the global market. That has nothing to do with Britain and the Government. More people are employed in telecommunications than before. Would you not agree—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. First, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long. Secondly, he is not using the correct parliamentary language. He has had long enough for his intervention.
  Mr. Redwood: My case stands. The British Government, followed by the German Government, took huge sums from the leading telecommunications companies in this country. Massive over-regulation and the sale of licences when the public sector had a monopoly stranglehold on marginal spectrum is the important issue. That has done enormous damage. The hon. Gentleman can argue until he is blue in the face, but he should watch what happens next. More redundancies will occur—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the mark. We are getting into a general history of financial affairs in recent years. Will he please return to the Bill?
  Mr. Redwood: I am happy to do that.
  The Bill does not offer the sort of deregulation that industry desperately needs. Over-licensing and over-expensive regulation of the telecommunications industry is an example that the Government will not tackle.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of the Government's policy on the telecommunications industry is that it has left them unable to pursue the extent of deregulation required by the introduction of full competitive pressures, especially on local loop unbundling, that would appeal to a broader business interest in stimulating broad-band access? The Government's desire for additional revenue and their propensity for regulation are intimately connected.
  Mr. Redwood: I quite agree, and I notice that there is nothing to tackle that problem on the list of 51 varieties of possible deregulation. There is a case for the right

  63
  kind of additional deregulation in telecommunications. Although that would not offset the massive tax burden, it would at least send a signal that the Government have not lost all interest in and enthusiasm for such a leading sector. However, I see from the rather blank looks on ministerial faces that we are not going to get that.
  Another area in which I would like further deregulation—which I am pleased to see that the Conservative party has pledged to achieve as soon as it has regained power—is IR35 regulation of the computer industry. That is another important lead industry alongside telecommunications. If the new revolution was about anything, it was about the application of telecoms, dotcoms and computing to create exciting new economic developments. What did the Government do? They smashed not only the telecoms industry with their taxes but a lot of the entrepreneurship in the smaller computing businesses by imposing IR35.
  Will the Minister use the so-called Henry VIII powers in the Bill to get rid of IR35? I checked with the Clerks, and was told that the proposal can cover any tax matter. If I give way now, will the Minister say that the Government will get rid of IR35? The computing industry would love to get that provision off the statute books. I see from the Minister's staying in a sedentary position that we have drawn a blank.
  Mr. Ian Stewart rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he cannot make such a pledge.
  Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. I was rising to speak on my own behalf.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman thought that at all, but there we are. I shall proceed.
  There are terrible problems in a raft of rural businesses that are being worried to death by too much regulation. The Government have heaped general regulation, employee regulation and other forms of regulation on them. They are required to have much more sophisticated payroll activities to handle the working families tax credit and other measures that have been introduced—and, of course, the rates keep going up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has said that, at this time of crisis in rural businesses, the Government should at least get rid of the business rate for a few months. Will the Minister use the powers in the Bill, or elsewhere, to do that? That would be a sensible gesture at a time when those businesses are being grossly damaged by over-regulation.
  The Government started their response to the agriculture crisis by saying that people should not go walking in the countryside. That obviously flattened a lot of the hotel and leisure businesses that were making a reasonable living and whose big season was coming up at Easter. We now hear that the Government might relax those instructions. Will Ministers take the opportunity of this debate on regulation to tell those businesses what they are going to do for them? This is an immediate problem:
  64
  the Easter holiday bookings are being cancelled now. Will the Government deregulate some of those movements, or is it unsafe to do so? If it is unsafe—as it may be—will the Government offer rate relief or some other compensation? This is a serious point.
  I was contacted by constituents today, who pointed out how silly some of this regulation has become. My constituents, who, like me, would like any sensible action to be taken to clear up this dreadful disease in our sheep and our cattle, went to the local park. They were banned from walking in it, but were prepared to accept that regulation. They then discovered that a football competition was going to be held in the park for teams from outside the area, and that permission had been given for the competition to go ahead. Yet my constituents did not have permission to walk on their normal route through the wooded area, which is quite ridiculous, but again shows that Ministers are not living up to expectations—even the expectations in the Bill—of transparent, fair and sensible regulations.
  Mr. Fabricant: May I give another example? There is a long list of legislation that needs to be changed. Is my right hon. Friend aware that pig breeders are breaching welfare regulations? Weaners are being born and are now overcrowding their pens—thus breaking the law—yet breeders are not permitted to move the pigs away or even to slaughter them in situ? Would not this be an ideal point in the debate for the Minister for the Cabinet Office—who I see has now left her place—to make the position clear on that matter?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has come up with a powerful and worrying example of conflicting regulation, yet no Minister is prepared to speak for the Government on which part of the regulation is the more important, or to offer any hope at all to people at their wits' end trying to run their businesses against this awful background.
  Mr. Leigh: I go back to a point that I made earlier. Businesses in rural areas are going out of business because regulations are driving our rural tourism industry out of business, yet we are wasting hours of House of Commons time debating a Bill that will never become law because there will be a general election. Is there anything to stop Ministers acting now? Do we need this Bill? What is going on?
  Mr. Redwood: That is our point about Second Reading. On Second Reading, we are allowed to discuss the wisdom of introducing the Bill. My hon. Friends and I feel that Ministers could take action today to clarify the inconsistencies and the awful muddle. We are saying not that they have to be clarified in one way rather than another, but that they must be clarified.
  Ministers must go on television and explain how they are going to handle this awful crisis, and tell us which regulations apply and which do not. If many of the regulations needed to be changed, I am sure that Conservative Members would be willing to take some time today or tomorrow to change them, so that it would be done and rural businesses would know where they stood and had some chance of producing a plan for their own survival.
  The haulage industry is another example of a set of businesses gravely damaged—in some cases, bankrupted or wiped out—by over-regulation, over-expensive

  65
  licences and over-taxation. A combination of the highest diesel taxes in Europe, very expensive licence fees and a very complicated bureaucracy to regulate so many aspects of those businesses has led business to go to foreign hauliers. It has also led some British hauliers to flag out altogether and run their operations from northern France or Belgium, and it will lead other businesses into bankruptcy.
  The haulage industry will undoubtedly suffer even more because of the spread of foot and mouth disease and the lack of cattle movements. That is a natural event that is extremely sad, but the Government had set the haulage industry up for bad performance long before that disaster hit. It is because the industry was so weak going into the crisis that we shall lose many more haulage businesses as a result of it.
  Mr. Pike: Why did the previous Government not deregulate the road haulage industry between 1994 and 1997, and why did they introduce the fuel duty escalator?
  Mr. Redwood: If we could get back to the levels of taxation and regulation that we enjoyed in 1997, the haulage industry would be cheering in the streets. I am delighted that the Conservative party is now committed to reducing the regulatory and tax burden, but this Government must answer the charge. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the burden was too high in 1997, why did he support all the measures to increase it between 1997 and today? It is absurd to say that because there were some specks of dust in someone's eye in 1997, sticking a twig into it thereafter does not matter. That is what the Government came along and did.
  It was this Government's fuel escalator that did the real damage. They increased the rate of increase in the fuel escalator, and dragooned their Back Benchers into voting for the measure. It was not a Tory fuel escalator after 1997; it was a Labour fuel escalator. It was bigger and worse after 1997, and it has done much more damage as a result. Will the Minister tell us what action will be used to help the haulage industry under these deregulatory powers, if they are finally implemented? Will it not be too late? Does not the Minister realise that hauliers will be going bust now, tomorrow and for the rest of this week because the Government are over-taxing and over-regulating?
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his party had any plans to remove the fuel duty escalator before it lost power?
  Mr. Redwood: I was very keen to stop it. I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have seen the wisdom of my arguments, because when one is on an escalator one reaches a point at which one wants to get off. There is no way in which a Conservative Chancellor would have increased the rate of ascent, given how high it had already gone. A Conservative Chancellor would have listened to the representations and said, "Yes, the duty is now at the same level as that of our continental competitors. It would be dangerous for the industry to raise it further."
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has almost anticipated the point that I am going to make. Does he recall that, at the time of the implementation of the
  66
  fuel duty escalator, our petrol prices were mid-way in the European range, whereas they are now 10 per cent. higher than the second highest petrol price in Europe?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I must advise right hon. and hon. Members that they are again straying from the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I ask the Minister to take into account road haulage regulation, and explain to the House why this weedy Bill does not tackle that problem. Will he come back to the House with a Bill that deregulates some aspects of the road haulage industry? He must know by now what the industry wants, because the Government have been in consultation with it for many months. Costs are too high, so business is going abroad and hauliers are being driven into bankruptcy by wrong regulation.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow his natural shyness and self-effacement to cause him to understate his case. May I put it on record that on 26 September 1996, during a speech at Haddenham school in my Buckingham constituency, he advocated deregulation on a massive scale, and that there was cheering afterwards?
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to hear that—but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be delighted to learn that I shall not regale the House with the text of my speech. Indeed, as it was made off the cuff, I do not think that I could remember all of it. Anyway, I am delighted that my hon. Friend enjoyed it, and I still believe what I believed then.
  Manufacturing has also suffered badly from too much regulation under this Government. Their feeling has been that any amount of regulation can be poured into manufacturing—regulation affecting jobs, and making the industry do their work for them in regard to tax and benefits—without any trouble being caused. There have already been more than 300,000 net job losses; how many more will it take before the Government wake up to the sad truth that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire revealed, in general terms? We are losing competitiveness. It is no longer cheap enough to make things in Britain—the Government have made it too dear to make things in Britain—so many jobs are draining away to other countries.
  Even this Government must have understood the tragedy that is Corus, and the massive cuts in the steel industry. Even this Government, with Members representing practically all the major textile locations, must have noticed that the textile industry is being gravely damaged by the combination of a weak euro—allowing European competitors more of an edge—with massive increases in costs, many pushed through by too much regulation and taxation. The Opposition look for some relief for textiles, steel and the other basic manufacturing industries, but we look for that in vain in this badly drafted Bill.
  The Bill is an example of cynical manipulation—typical spin. We are told that the Government need greater powers to introduce deregulation. With their majority they could introduce any deregulation they liked as primary

  67
  legislation, and given that they shove everything through in two or three hours anyway it would not take very long to do the job. Why do they not simply present some deregulation measures in the form of primary legislation? They might even find that we would expedite the passage of such measures, and would not be as worried about being given so little time for debate as we are in the case of many of the massive regulatory measures that they regularly propose.
  We are told that these are Henry VIII powers in a good cause. That does a grave injustice to the late king, who, after all, introduced all his reformation measures in the form of primary legislation, in this House of Commons. Perhaps it is because he was an early Eurosceptic that the Government are taking such exception to him, and giving the powers that name.
  The power that the Bill introduces is wholly undesirable. It is the power to regulate anew, and to impose additional burdens on an already massively overburdened private sector without the normal questions being asked and without the normal processes of primary legislation. It is true that there is long-winded consultation, which the Government will undoubtedly ignore when they have decided what they want to do, and it is true that there is a statutory instrument procedure. I think it wholly undesirable, however, that the House should be bypassed—in several ways—when the Government want to impose new regulatory burdens.
  It is very different from getting rid of things. People have too much government. I have more government than I want, more government than I need, and certainly more government than I can afford. I speak for many of my constituents in saying that. The Bill will create an additional power to allow more regulation, without proper scrutiny.
  I am surprised that the Government think it worth bothering, given that they have developed so many other ways of avoiding proper scrutiny of their measures and regulations. We now have an almost perpetual guillotine, pushed through to ensure that there is as little debate as possible. Labour Back Benchers are asked to occupy all the time available, so that the number of critical remarks can be reduced. Often, Ministers show a contemptuous attitude to those of us who seek to ask legitimate questions about how measures will work and whether they will work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what this has to do with regulations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Redwood: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to discuss the power by order to make provisions reforming the law, which I consider to be a wide-ranging power. My worry—subject to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that it constitutes a method of avoiding even the perfunctory debate that we are allowed under the guillotine and primary legislation procedures; and, because it is so wide ranging, I fear that it is possible to talk about more or less anything. The Government have not made it entirely clear what they will introduce.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly not possible to talk about more or less anything.
  Mr. Redwood: I accept your wise words and your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think you would agree that the Government want to take wide-ranging powers to reform, in unspecified ways, a wide range of law—all law, indeed, that affects persons carrying on an activity or business That is why I have confined my remarks to the subject of regulations affecting businesses. As the Clerks advise me, that clearly encompasses tax regulation, which is often the most onerous and expensive.
  Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the two amendments carried in the Lords, to which I have specifically referred, ensure that a balance of deregulation must offset any new regulation?
  Mr. Redwood: I am not sure that it must offset any new regulation in the way that I would like, but my point is rather different: I believe that any new regulation should have to go through normal procedures, and I see no objection to Ministers' presenting such measures in the form of primary legislation, according to their proposed truncated method of dealing with such legislation.
  I defend the principle of the 1994 Act: that those who wish to strike something off the legislative list might want an expedited procedure. The principle was fairly tightly controlled, but there was some sense in it. I see no case for—effectively—allowing primary legislation to go through to re-regulate increased regulatory burdens under this kind of procedure and I think the House would regret consenting to that.
  The Bill shows that the Government are into a cut-and-run election. They know that the telecoms business, the City, the computing businesses, farms and agri-businesses, haulage businesses and manufacturing businesses are going into a bust. The Government know that many of those firms will shed labour, and that some will go bankrupt: they are suffering very badly.
  In all cases, there is a common thread. Yes, there are world conditions; yes. there are currency movements. The common thread, however—the thing that makes it worse here—is the Government's attitude and their action in over-taxing and over-regulating, usually by means of very expensive licensing, artificially restricting the supply of something that a business needs, and then charging the earth to enable that business to obtain it.
  It is high time that this Government were well and truly rumbled, and my feeling is that the business community is well and truly rumbling them. Far from calling an end to boom and bust, they are creating boom for some and bust for others at the same time. Far from behaving with respect to Parliament they are introducing massive new powers to bypass, sideline and spreadeagle Parliament in the wrong direction. Far from giving us any deregulation, they are going to give us more rules, regulations and costs. Far from understanding the deep trouble in which many of our businesses find themselves, they ride on, taxing

  69
  and regulating those businesses as if nothing was wrong. I hope that the people will reach the right conclusion on 3 May.
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly concerned about the interpretation that you placed on points that may be raised on Second Reading. I genuinely seek your guidance, for future reference.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be seeking my guidance, but it sounds s'ispiciously as if he is questioning the judgment of the Chair. I can say only that I will judge each speech and ea( h point entirely on its merits.
  Mr. Leigh: Of course I am not questioning your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a genuine request for guidance on what we should discuss on Second Reading. I was rather under the impression that, in the case of a wide-ranging Bill with a eery open preamble relating to all "burdens affecting persons", Second Reading-as opposed to Report and Committee-was the one occasion when Members could range widely in discussing the principles behind the Fill. I feel that that is an important freedom, which Parliament must retain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the matter of how widely hon. Members may range in their speeches is entirely foi the occupant of the Chair. I shall bring them back to ordor if I think that they are out of order.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Brian White: The long speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) demonstrates the current state of the Conservative party. Conservative Members have raised many issues concerning regulations that they themselves introduced. Many of the issues that they have raised are not properly related to the debate. My neighbour the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) gave the game away when he said, "It is all Europe's fault." Those comments sum up today's Tory party.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it is always a pleasure to joust with one's parliamentary neighbour. There are many things that I am content to blame on the institutions of the European Union, but at no stage in any intervention did I say that it was all Europe's fault. The hon. Gentleman really should correct himself.
  Mr. White: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is something good in Europe.
  I welcome the Bill. The speeches of both the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham have highlighted the interesting paradox that, although the United Kingdom is one of the least-regulated countries, we are one of the countries that complains most about regulation. The debate has not yet dealt with that paradox. I think that we should judge the Bill on the basis of whether it addresses the issue of what constitutes appropriate regulation. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough. As I shall explain later, I believe that the Bill is not sufficiently radical and only tinkers with current processes.
  70
  There is a real problem with the regulation-deregulation debate. We seem to be saying that deregulation is good and regulation is bad. It is reminiscent of the 1980s debate in which it was maintained—depending on one's point of view; Conservative Members maintained the opposite—that the public sector was good and the private sector was bad. I believe that that is a sterile debate, as it ignores the complexity of the modern world and confuses issues of principle with specific bureaucratic policies. The confusion of principle with policy serves no one who is engaged in the regulation-deregulation debate.
  Cynics may assume that, in this debate, Conservative Members are playing a game—which is either to do with a post-general election leadership bid or with preventing the Bill from being passed before the next general election. I am not a cynic and I would made no such assumptions. However, I predict that, at the first meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, there will be a manufactured row designed to demonstrate Conservative Members' outrage about the Bill.
  In their speeches so far. Tory Members have gone on about red tape and the burden on business, but not one has identified what he meant by "burden" or "costs" or has defined "regulation".
  Mr. Redwood: Did the hon. Gentleman not listen to what I said? I gave a whole series of examples of massive costs—costs of licences and costs of taxes—that should not have been imposed. Will he now address those issues?
  Mr. White: The right hon. Gentleman listed various issues and industries, but confused cost issues in those industries with the bureaucracy that deals with those matters. When some of us talk about regulation, we are talking about the costs of bureaucracy. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing issues that have nothing to do with regulation and had to be reminded of that fact on several occasions. The Bill addresses specific regulation issues, not the principle of measures such as the working families tax credit or the working time directive. The right hon. Gentleman was attempting to deal with those matters of principle. I do not think that anyone should have to apologise for saying that working people should have a right to a decent working life and support.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) failed to recognise that spectrum, for example, is a finite resource and should not be given away free, willy-nilly, to telecommunications companies? It is in the interests of the Government and the public that we maximise revenue from the sale of spectrum, and thereby help to pay for schools, hospitals and the Government's other priorities, on which they are doing so well. Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is a matter not of whether we should have more regulation or less regulation, but of how we ensure that we have good regulation rather than bad regulation? That is the issue that the Deregulation Committee has been addressing.
  Mr. White: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the latter point-the choice is between good regulation and bad regulation, and I shall give some examples of bad regulation later. As for spectrum, as one who worked in the information technology industry before the general election, I do not think that any of those companies would

  71
  have been prepared to invest such sums if they had not judged that the investment would bring them very high returns. The private companies that the right hon. Member for Wokingham described are not so stupid that they do not judge the market before investing. I do not think that they would be in business for long if they were. The right hon. Gentleman belittled them when he said that they did not make such a judgment.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that the Tory Government intended to reduce burdens. However, as those of us who were not part of that Government know, the reality was very different. There was extensive regulation. Just recently, Virgin railways has offered half fares to people travelling on the west coast main line. I see the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) nodding; he is probably one of those who has benefited from that offer, which was an excellent initiative. My constituents in Milton Keynes could not take advantage of the Virgin offer because, according to the licences and regulations issued at privatisation, the fare had to be determined by Silverlink, the local operator, which decided not to allow its customers to benefit from its rival's promotion. The Conservative Government introduced that regulation when they were privatising the industry, effectively to create a cartel.
  Conservative Members' rhetoric is undermined by the previous Government's actions. They go on as if the Tory Government did nothing but deregulate but in fact that Government introduced various regulations from which people have not benefited.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the regulations that applied on privatisation. Just as Virgin was, and is, free to choose the fare that it wishes to charge, so Silverlink is free to decide its fares. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted as much. It is not a matter of regulation. It just so happens that Silverlink, unlike Virgin, has chosen not to make such arrangements. Next year, Silverlink may decide to have an offer, and Virgin may not. That is what competition is all about.
  Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Silverlink does have offers. However, as consumers, my constituents and I are being prevented by regulations introduced by the Conservative Government from choosing Virgin's lower offer. We can take either the lower fare that Silverlink has rightly decided to offer, or Virgin's higher fare, but regulation prevents us from taking Virgin's lower fare. That is the point that I was making. As I said, the Conservative Government added to the regulatory burden. Although Conservative Members try to create the impression that the Conservative party is a great deregulator, such an impression is belied by the facts.
  The issue of abattoirs has been mentioned. The previous Government's passage and implementation of over-zealous regulation reduced the number of veterinarians in abattoirs.
  Conservatives keep talking about deregulation, but what they actually mean is poorer working conditions, poorer health and safety arrangements, lower pay, and the removal of parts of our disability discrimination legislation. If that is what they mean by deregulation, they will be judged at the general election and found wanting.
  72
  When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) introduced the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he said that he would try to reduce the number of business licences from the "absurd" number of 265. My understanding is that by 1997 that number had risen to 355, so I do not think that that was a particularly good example for the right hon. Gentleman to use.
  The parliamentary procedures have already been mentioned, and I would argue that the deregulation and contracting out procedures under the Bill are much better than the present statutory instrument procedures. I serve on the Select Committee on Deregulation, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Public Administration, so I see the procedures from three different angles. My experience on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments leads me to believe that the procedures outlined in the Bill will be a much more effective way forward, and will also involve more consultation.
  Simply focusing on the number of regulations and the need to deregulate pays no heed to the benefits that regulation can bring to business, and does not consider how regulations work. It does not consider environmental issues, either. I suspect that Conservative Members will complain about environmental regulation. They claim that the Government are not green enough, but we have achieved a lot compared with the Conservative Government. Conservative Members ought to realise that what they say now belies what they did then.
  We could play a game of ping-pong about regulation all night, but that would diminish the seriousness of the Bill. As I have said, we are one of the least-regulated countries, and when we do introduce regulations we do not really debate why we are doing it, or to what categories of people and businesses they apply.
  Another key aspect that we ignore is how regulations are to be enforced. Far too often, they are designed for administrative convenience, rather than from the point of view of the businesses, individuals or consumer groups that will have to use them. That criticism applies to all parties.
  We need to consider the types of burden, and costs are another important element. We also need to think about how people react to regulations and the reorganisation that they require. I can remember having to rewrite computer systems and backdate them, because regulations introduced by the previous Government did not allow time for companies to make the changes.
  One of the important benefits of the Bill will be pre-legislative scrutiny, which will allow such issues to be highlighted to the Deregulation Committee or its successor, and to the House. We never talk about the burden of time that regulations impose, either. That is one of the fundamental ways in which we as a Parliament ought to examine legislation.
  We also ought to think about who the burdens fall on. They do not impact on the business community alone, although of course that community is important. The burden of regulation, also falls on local authorities, education authorities, health authorities and so on. We need a way of ensuring that those burdens can be relieved where appropriate.
  We tend to ignore the question of cross-border and multinational regulation, despite the fact that we live in the age of the internet. The Regulation of Investigatory

  73
  Powers Act 2000 has already been mentioned, and some of its provisions are already irrelevant, having been superseded because the technology has moved on. Some of us would say that that was a good thing.
  That example shows us that in a complex modern world, the way in which we introduce regulations in the House is not necessarily the best way. We need to take a fundamental look at the type of regulation that we should be implementing. We should approach the matter from a 21st-century standpoint, rather than simply carrying on with our present procedures.
  One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it perpetuates the way in which Parliament enacts legislation. We should consider light-touch regulation; the Government, to their credit, have done that on a number of occasions. We should set an objective. We should ask what the objective of any particular regulation is, and then set out measures by which we can judge whether that objective has been met.
  How people deliver the objective should not be the subject of the regulation; that is one of my fundamental disagreements with the Opposition. I do not think that the Bill goes far enough. We should be able to use the procedures within it to go much further and make legislation more appropriate. We should be able to use codes of practice much more, as that would simplify many of our existing regulations.
  Enforcement practices are important, too. The Bill starts to go down the road towards simplifying them—but that should not be something tacked on at the end; it should be set in stone in the consultation procedures. Too often in our regulations, we add on at the end the enforcement procedures and the details of the way in which the regulations will work.
  There will be 109 statutory instruments before the Joint Committee tomorrow, yet the Committee will probably spend no more than 20 minutes dealing with them. That is no way to deal with regulations—and before the Tories start crowing and saying how disgraceful that is, I have to add that the same thing happened under the Conservative Administration. What is more, by opposing the Bill, the Tories propose to remove a way in which much regulation could be scrutinised more effectively.
  I realise that I shall not persuade the Government to move towards setting objectives and introducing more light-touch regulation today, but they will have to come back to such ideas in due course.
  One of the reasons why people in Holland and other countries can sit round and talk about their regulations is that they are understandable. I was going to say that they are written in plain English, but of course they are written in those countries' own language. In some places that could be, and probably is, plain English.
  How are people to understand what is required of them? An example that came to my attention a few weeks ago is one sentence in one regulation, which reads as follows:
  "In the case of any outstanding request which has been made (in the case of the Gas Act) in accordance with a licence condition imposed under section 7B of that Act either to the Director General or the Secretary of State for a determination of such questions arising under the licence, or under any document specified or described in the licence, as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified".
  I have read out only five of the 15 lines of that sentence, and nobody can understand what they mean. What the provision actually means is, "If the application's already
  74
  in the pipeline we'll deal with it under the old regulations; if it's a new one, we deal with it under the new regulations." Nobody can understand 15 lines of gobbledegook.
  Too often we introduce unnecessary complexity in our legislation. People do not understand the issues because they do not understand the language that the provisions are written in. That is what gives rise to the Opposition's comments about the need for more deregulation, when what we actually need is more understandable regulation.
  Mr. Pike: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. Does he agree with me that we often do that just so that the legal profession can make a lot of money determining what the laws we pass mean?
  Mr. White: My prejudice against the legal profession is another matter.
  We do people a disservice when it comes to understanding and, indeed, implementing regulations. I used to be a systems analyst, and had to interpret the previous Government's legislation. I once programmed changes to a computer system, having got the regulation back to front, simply because I did not understand that a "not" was in the wrong place. I had programmed the system according to what I had read and believed was right, when it should have been the exact opposite. That could have cost my company a lot of money; luckily, the mistake was spotted before the system went live. Such complexity does the country a disservice.
  Simply to talk about the deregulation, as the Tories do, is not to address the issue. That is why the better regulation taskforce is such a good initiative, as is the Small Business Service, which looks at regulations. It is not only small businesses that should be looking at them, however: public bodies, trade unions, voluntary groups and the community as a whole should all be asking what regulations are trying to achieve.
  I regret the concession given to the Conservatives in the House of Lords, which made the first objective, deregulation, the primary objective of the Bill, when in fact there are places where we could change the nature of the regulatory burden, helping to simplify the legislation and ensure better understanding of it. That is where I fundamentally disagree with the Opposition.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, but I think that he is missing the point. The comparison with continental systems is essentially to do with the nature of those countries' legal systems. For simple, purposive legislation and regulation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is looking for, one needs a wholly different legal construction. In the United Kingdom, we are essentially free to do what we like unless the law specifically provides that we shall not, so deregulation is of the essence in achieving a reduced regulatory burden in this country. Under the codes systems in European countries, people are not able to do things unless the code allows them to, so the purposive form of codes often makes it easier to have regulations in that form.
  Mr. White: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about Europe, but I was not arguing from a European perspective. I was arguing for what I believe is right for this country. The way in which we enact laws acts against

  75
  the interests of ordinary citizens. We have been described as dotting every i and crossing every t, which causes many problems that we could do without. I am not arguing for deregulation. I am saying that the achievement of regulation should be viewed differently in relation to its objectives. We need to separate those two points in a more transparent way than we have in the past.
  Our parliamentary process should also change. I do not think that we have the best system of parliamentary scrutiny of regulation. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has a very good Clerk and very good legal support, which its members find tremendously helpful. However, I do not think that the Committee's work represents the best scrutiny of regulations. We have not used the Select Committee on Deregulation and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the other place in the most effective way. I do not see the point of many of the statutory instrument committees; there is a lot of talk but not many changes. The system for holding Ministers to account regarding regulations should change.
  The Bill deals with preliminary consultation, but a lot more could be done. The Deregulation Committee should do a lot more proactive work, and I think that the proposed changes to its Standing Orders will allow that to happen.
  Removing politically controversial regulations will diminish the role of the Bill. There is so much more that the Bill could do. The successful measures in the 1994 Act would, along with these provisions, enable us to go a lot further and deal with issues such as deferred voting.
  A number of changes were made to the Bill in the Lords. It is typical that the Conservatives agreed those changes in the other place and then oppose them here; I suppose that that sums up the modern Tory party. The original four objectives are now one objective and three aspirations. It is important to recognise the change in clause 1(3). It undermines everything that the Conservative party has said, because it makes deregulation the key part of any proposal. I regret it, but in terms of reaching a consensus, it is probably the best way. It is a major step forward, but there will still be anomalies, inconsistencies and inappropriate legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made a number of points that I was going to make about subordinate provision and the changes that have been made. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has committed himself to reviewing the Bill. I would like to see it reviewed annually. I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend will give the commitment that Parliament will review the legislation on a regular basis and that when there is an adverse report from the Committee, the current convention that it should not proceed will continue.
  This timely Bill will take us a step forward. However, we should be looking for much more radical reform. We need appropriate regulations, appropriate processes and an open and understandable regulatory system. People need to be able to understand the laws of this country, what the burden of regulation is and why they have to comply.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I think that the Bill is designed for a general election: it is not designed ever to become law. This is a Bill in the subjunctive—for example, clause 9(1)(b) refers to "ought". However, the best bit is in the explanatory notes:
  "A number of potential reforms could be brought forward…The following proposals might be capable…Full details of the proposals have yet to be developed …"
  If ever there was an example of spin and no substance, this is it.
  Talking about spin, we have heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the 10p up, 1p down Chancellor. The Minister for the Cabinet Office said that the Bill will ensure that £40 million is returned to businesses. That makes her "£10,000 million up, £40 million back" Mo. We have already heard from the British Chambers of Commerce that some £10 billion of extra burdens have been placed on business. Although I would welcome just £1 back, when one, considers that £40 million in the context of £10 billion, one gets an idea of the size of the problem that we face. I remind the House that the£10 billion of burdens have been imposed on businesses by this Government since 1997.
  I began by mentioning spin, and I want to ensure that the Government do not try to spin my speech to make it sound as if I said that we should abolish the national minimum wage. I make it plain, as I have in the past, that I have never personally opposed a minimum wage. However, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, it must be set at a balanced rate. She said in her opening speech that at the last election the Conservative party claimed that the minimum wage would create 1 million unemployed. That was based on the rate of £5 an hour which the Labour party was talking about at the time. As it is, the Government initially set the rate at £3.20 an hour, and it is now about £3.70 an hour, which is very different from the figure on which we based our unemployment predictions.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly referred to the British Chambers of Commerce. The last publication of its burdens barometer showed that the total cost of additional burdens had reached £9.62 billion. It made it clear that that did not include the recurring cost of the national minimum wage, so the consequent increase in wages as distinct from the administrative cost was left out.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which is directly concerned with the nature of the Bill. Members of all parties are concerned about the impact that the minimum wage may have on the national health service. We must recognise that while all working people deserve a decent basic minimum wage. the rate at which it is set will affect the rates of those higher up the scale—those are the famous differentials that we heard so much about in the 1980s and 1990s. A change to the minimum wage affects workers all the way up the scale, and unless there is a consequential increase in the money given to the NHS, there will be insufficient funding for hospitals and all the other services that people need.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I repeat that the figure used by the hon. Gentleman adds the administrative costs of regulation to the cost of the policies themselves. The cost

  77
  of the minimum wage and the working, families tax credit combined means that the figure is enormous, but the real regulatory burden is much smaller.
  Mr. Fabricant: I do not believe that that is correct. We questioned the British Chambers of Commerce on that very issue, and it disagreed with the Government's assumption. It argued that the total consists of direct costs imposed on its members. When we questioned the organisation further, it said, "Hang on a minute. We're the ones who did the calculation and we based it directly on additional costs." I note that the right hon. Lady is indicating dissent. I accept what she has said, but I hope that she will accept what I am saying when I simply report that the British Chambers of Commerce, which produced the document and did the calculation, says that the Government are wrong. Those burdens have indeed been placed on its members.
  I would add that those members are the very companies that employ a majority of people in the United Kingdom. Many of them are manufacturing companies, so should we be surprised that jobs have been lost? The world economy is expanding and Britain, on the whole, is enjoying a healthy economic climate, not because of actions taken by the Government but because the United States economy is so strong. We have the largest overseas direct investment in the United States, and vice versa. When the United States catches a cold, we sneeze, and vice versa. The economy is doing reasonably well at the moment, except in manufacturing. Unlike the United States, or even Germany, the United Kingdom has lost 300,000 jobs because of administrative burdens. [Interruption.] I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) wants to intervene.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I thought that I had no prospect of interrupting his flow, because he was being so eloquent. I want to make it perfectly clear that the British Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer includes in its gross estimate of £10 billion both a figure for one-off administrative costs for the introduction of the national minimum wage and recurring administrative costs at an average of the various compliance cost assessment figures that have been produced. The organisation expressly states that the total of £674 million for the cost of the national minimum wage does not include the £2.4 billion estimate for additional wage costs and the maintenance of wage differentials consequent on the policy itself, as distinct from its implementation and administration.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I refer him and, more importantly, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to www.britishchambers.org.uk/ cutredtape/burdensbarometer.htm, where the right hon. Lady can read those facts for herself. Her Department is trying very hard, but largely failing, to achieve the good aim of introducing the internet to Departments. Assuming that she is on the internet, she might care to look at the site and read for herself the point that my hon. Friend has made.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am only too happy to give way to my old sparring partner. I owe him that, as he voted for me to be joint chairman of the all-party internet group.
  Mr. Stewart: I was frightened lest I referred to the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend. He has gone on at length about the British Chambers of Commerce and the so-called burdens imposed by the minimum wage regulations. How does he reconcile that view with the statement made by the Institute of Directors earlier this month? It said:
  "In the past we have expressed some concerns about earlier drafts of the Bill. However, following the amendments made in the Lords. I can assure you that we regard this as a good Bill. If it is used to its full potential it should make a noticeable difference in the Red Tape burden. "
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not refer to the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend, but I thank him for his intervention. The Institute of Directors was concerned about what might be in the Bill, but if he wants to trade reactions to the Bill, I am only too happy to do so. I can tell him that the CBI is not so confident about the Bill. Its president, Digby Jones—a name to conjure with—said that
  "it will not ease concern about the relentless build up of new regulations".
  The British Chambers of Commerce said that it is
  "concerned that the benefits of this measure will be completely overshadowed by government plans to introduce further layers of employment regulation".
  That regulation has created 300,000 job losses when, as I said, other countries, including the United States and Germany, are doing so well.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it was singularly inept of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) to intervene to invoke the alleged support of the Institute of Directors, in view of the fact, of which I hope my hon. Friend is aware, that its head of policy, Ruth Lea, is on record as saying:
  "This Government has no idea what it is like to run a business. Business is facing one regulation after another. There is no respite."
  Is that not game, set and match?
  Mr. Fabricant: Game, set and match indeed. My hon. Friend is right; were he playing at Wimbledon, he would be holding the silver chalice high.
  Mr. Ian Stewart rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, although I want to move on. I do not want to monopolise the debate.
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talked about balance. Let me bring Conservative Members up to date with the CBI view. Mr. Digby Jones said:
  "It would be worthwhile reiterating CBI support for the Regulatory Reform Bill at this stage. We believe that the Bill has the potential of providing the tools that could deliver real benefits to business by cutting unnecessary red tape".
  It would have been illogical of Mr. Jones to make such a statement before making the one referred to by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
  Mr. Fabricant: We could spend all evening trading remarks about the Bill made by various people. The Conservative party does not oppose the principle of

  79
  deregulation. Indeed, although I cannot possibly tell, I imagine that we shall not vote against Second Reading. However, I make it clear to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the Government Whip, who is reaching for his pager to send a message to the Government Chief Whip, that I am merely speculating. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) reminds me from the Front Bench that we have a three-line Whip for 10 o'clock. We shall certainly vote for our reasoned amendment: although the principle of the Bill and any reduction in regulation where that is not dangerous to employees and where it does not create an uncontrolled free-for-all are to be welcomed, we are not sure that the measure will improve legislation considered by the House or reduce the burden of legislation.
  In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I pointed out that the Bill contains considerable weaknesses. One is that it will reduce the scrutiny of legislation by the House. I asked my hon. Friend whether it would have done anything to prevent £628 million of taxpayers' money from being spent on the Prime Minister's folly—the millennium dome. The answer is no. Will it do anything to reduce the £4 billion a year that is lost in benefit fraud? The answer is no. Will it do anything to reduce Government administration costs, which have gone up to £15.3 billion? That is £1.8 billion more than in the last year of Conservative government. Once again, the answer is no. The real fear is that it will further enable the Government to rubber-stamp legislation and whip through the House of Commons measures that would otherwise be scrutinised.
  Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government will be able to whip legislation through the House. How will they be able to do that, given that consultation will be built into Deregulation Committee procedures? He also suggests that everything can be covered by the Bill. Surely that is not the case, as some matters are outside its remit. I would be interested in his comments on both issues.
  Mr. Fabricant: The whole point is that everything cannot go into the Bill; I wish it could. Those matters that involve burdens as defined by the Bill can be dealt with, though I do not think that it will be enacted, as this cut-and-run Government will clearly announce a general election in the middle of a national crisis. The definition of burden is another loose provision. The Bill is subjunctive—it is all ought and might, not will and shall be.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has read the legislation in great detail, so I put to him an example from Italy. To relieve burdens, industrial concerns employing fewer than 15 people and agricultural concerns employing fewer than five are automatically exempt from much of the onerous employment legislation that causes them great difficulty there. Does he agree that the Government would emulate the Italians if they were serious about helping small firms?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. There are exemptions in the Bill, but only some, and they are for small businesses employing fewer than 20 people. However, in this day and age a firm employing 20 is not necessarily small.
  80
  I am one of the few Members of the House who did a real job before being elected.
  Mrs. Gorman>: Me, too.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is another, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is on the Front Bench.
  In 1979, I set up a broadcast electronics and radio station financing company with a partner. The company was small for some time, but in 1991 we were fortunate enough to sell to an American corporation, which gave me the ability to be a Member of Parliament without outside interests. The company had grown and it employed more than 600, but there were fewer than 10 for a long time, let alone fewer than 20. I shall tell you something, Mr. Deputy Speaker had I started my company after the election of the Labour Government in 1997, it would not have employed five people. because it would have gone bust because of the regulatory burden that we now face.
  Sadly, the Bill will not be able to stop the Government accepting and gold-plating European Union regulations. I shall give an example of a measure that destroyed a business in my constituency, and I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House not to break into grins when I mention the company's name. Every time I refer to it in the House, which is not often, Members start laughing—even though this is a serious matter and several hundred jobs were lost. The village of Armitage, which is in my constituency, is famous because Mr. Shanks was based there. [Interruption.] It has started already—my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is smiling.
  Armitage Shanks is one of the largest manufacturers of toiletware in the world, or it was. For many, many years, the Conservative Government resisted a European directive that changed the definition of the mechanics by which toilets are flushed. Until recently, this country used a siphonic system. When the chain is pulled or the lever is pushed, a vacuum is created and the toilet cannot leak. However, every year in France, leaky toilets lead to the waste of 500 million gallons of water, as they use a flat-valve system which corrodes after a while. As we see in France, Germany and elsewhere, water trickles out of toilets constantly, but that system was illegal in the United Kingdom because it wastes water.
  Here is the irony that should have been addressed by the Bill, but which will not be because of its drafting. In 1997, the first year under Labour, the Government went on the attack, telling the private water companies, "Every year, 100 million gallons of water are wasted through leaky pipes." They were right, although similar amounts are wasted in other countries, and it seemed like fair play to attack privatised companies such as Severn Trent Water and Thames Water.
  What did the Government do at the same time? They introduced legislation that put several hundred people at Armitage Shanks out of work. Cheaper toilets from Italy and France will be allowed into this country. When they are introduced, they will leak, which will result in 500 million gallons of water being wasted every year—that is a French Government figure. Where is the logic in that process?

  81
  One of my criticisms is that the Bill will do nothing about gold-plating and over-regulating legislation. Indeed, it will do nothing whatever to control the Government's obsession with appeasing Brussels and accepting any measure that emerges from there.
  Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend will be aware that the flush toilet system that he is talking about was invented by one of our own early pioneers—Mr. Thomas Crapper; his invention set that industry going. Does my hon. Friend think that, in the present climate—of regulatory organisations and legislation on employment, health and safety and the rest—people such as Mr. Crapper, with his excellent invention, would ever have got off the ground?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. Although I do not want to be out of order, I want to make one point about her comments before I move on, especially for our many American viewers—we are watched not only on the Parliamentary Channel but on C-Span in the United States. The first managing director of Armitage Shanks was Mr. John, who went over to New York to sell the British system. That is how they came by the slang name "john" for what we call the "loo"—it is not realised that that too came from the small town of Armitage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Fascinating though that may be, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: I was about to do just that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your patience while I made those points.
  The problem with the Bill is that it makes no real difference to the increased burdens that have been put on businesses. There is a backdrop of anger in the business sector as a result of all the red tape that has come from the Labour Government.
  In another place, Lord Falconer said that the Bill "facilitates reducing the burden of regulation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 850.]
  However, that remark is as reliable as his comments about the viability of the millennium dome, or indeed as reliable as the Prime Minister's remark that the dome and its success would be the first paragraph of Labour's next general election manifesto. We look forward to reading that manifesto—especially its first paragraph.
  In fact, the Bill can do nothing to reverse the heavy regulatory burden that has already been imposed by the Government. They have no plans to repeal any of the key burdens that they have introduced so far—on pay roll, the social chapter or fairness at work. Neither I nor my Front-Bench colleagues are arguing for repeal of all the burdens costing £9.62 million listed by the BCC£far from it. However, there is a point at which the straw breaks the camel's back; we reached it two or three years ago. The Bill would be more welcome if it actually achieved something—but it will not.
  The Government have wasted billions. I have already mentioned the millennium dome. There are many more examples of pet projects and spin that ought to—but will not—be controlled by the measure. For example, this year alone, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is spending £1,852,896 on opinion poll research and focus groups. Actually, I have unwittingly
  82
  told the House an untruth. I said the DETR was spending that money—but it is our money. Taxpayers' money is being spent on opinion poll research and focus groups. The Government are spending our money—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not talking about matters that come under the heading of regulation or of the Bill. I should be grateful if he did just that.
  Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not go through the long list of issues that should be covered by the Bill, because you are right. Ironically, if the Bill were all-encompassing, I could list those issues and could congratulate the Government on the fact that they would be covered by the measure. The great flaw of the Bill is that it is one gigantic loophole. This thin Bill is inadequate; it has merely 11 pages and does not encompass the issues that should be covered.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the support of the CBI, yet that organisation identified the fact that since the Government were elected in 1997, they have issued 3,000 new regulations that impinge on businesses. The CBI pointed out that every day 10 new regulations affect businesses and that that has destroyed 300,000 manufacturing jobs. It stated that additional costs of £23 billion have been imposed on manufacturing by the Government since they were elected in 1997.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman clearly will not want for matters to raise in future. He recites a range of statistics on the volume of regulation since 1997. I am not sure of the exact statistics, but is he aware that the volume of regulation since 1997 is little different from the volume under the previous Government?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is wrong—he is reading his Labour party brief. However, he is right to point out that the volume is similar to that introduced under the previous Conservative Government, but they were in power for 18 years. I am grateful that he makes that point, because we can be clear about the fact that the Government have had at least one achievement: in just four years, they have introduced the same amount of regulation—burdens on business—as Conservative Administrations introduced during 18 years. As I said earlier, not only do the Government constantly invent their own burdens for business, they gold-plate directives from Europe. They accede to Europe—far from being at the heart of Europe, they are the appeaser of Europe. They agree to provisions that benefit French and German businesses at the expense of British businesses.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend alludes to regulations from Europe. Did not the previous Conservative Administration actually make strenuous efforts to slow or stem the flow of regulation from Brussels? Indeed, through the opt-out from the social chapter, we put in place one of the most critical impediments to over-regulation. By removing that opt-out, the Labour Government have opened the floodgates and have ensured that an increasing torrent of regulation will come into the United Kingdom. We shall have no say in whether we either accept or implement it.
  Mr. Fabricant: In his typically calm way, my hon. Friend hits on the heart of the matter. Not only has that

  83
  surrender to Europe on social legislation meant that we have had to suffer burdens during the past three or four years. but it is a blank cheque for the future. During the next few years, a whole tranche of regulation will be directed at us; we shall have no right of veto over it. Sometimes I wonder why I stand up in this Parliament when it is becoming—at least in this area of activity—a county council to the European Parliament; indeed, not even to the European Parliament, but to the Council of Ministers, who are unelected.
  Mr. Hendrick: As someone who has served in the European Parliament, I point out that it introduces legislation that wipes out thousands of regulations throughout the EU—resulting overall in a net reduction in legislation in the 15 member states. Furthermore, I note that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that with regard to regulation
  "as a Minister under the previous Government…We would be the first to say that we did not do very well".—[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 250.]
  May I ask—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might not ask—two bites at the cherry are enough.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not allow him to make four or five points. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Some 3,000 regulations in 18 years represents far too much regulation, but we must control any regulation that hinders employment. Although we want regulations that ensure that people are cared for and protected at work, including the minimum wage, it is no good if those regulations prevent people from being employed in the first place. After all, did not a famous man once say, "You can't make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor"? Can any hon. Member tell me who said that? Abraham Lincoln said it.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government introduced 3,367 regulations in 1995, 3,291 in 1996, and 3,199 in 1997?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman can quote as much as he likes from his Labour party brief. I agree with him that there is too much legislation that burdens business. That is why Conservative Members support the principle of the Bill. However, we oppose the Bill itself because it is a sham. The hon. Gentleman knows that we shall have a general election on 3 May, unless there is a major increase in the rate of foot and mouth infection. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the county council elections will take place then, which is simply code for there being a general election on 3 May. So let us not kid ourselves—the Bill cannot become law unless, God forbid, the rate of infection of foot and mouth disease becomes far worse, in which case even this Prime Minister would have to accept that the general election should be postponed.
  I welcome any legislation that will get the balance right. but the Government have nothing of which to be proud. I make that point again because it must sink into
  84
  the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who, all the time that I am speaking, reads his Labour party brief. I remind him that the United States and Europe have enjoyed a very healthy economic climate and that the Government have enjoyed the good fortune of inheriting that legacy and also that of the previous Conservative Government. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Cabinet Office laughs, but I remind her that the rate of growth in the economy has been increasing constantly—boom and boom—since 1993. It has slowed down only since 1997, but, because of the success of the Labour party's spin, she believes her own party's lies.
  It is untrue to say that economic growth and good fortune have happened only since 1997. There has been continued growth since 1993, but it has slowed down since 1997, and it has done so in manufacturing, where, uniquely among the G7 countries, we have lost 300,000 jobs through European legislation and the sheer volume of expensive legislative burdens introduced by this Government.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall make another point before giving way to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member Preston lists the number of regulations introduced by the Conservative Government during the past 18 years, but he does not list the cost of those burdens on business. I should prefer 10,000 regulations that cost my company £1 than one regulation that cost it £20,000. He is singularly silent and looks into the middle distance.
  Mr. Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I have challenged him, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with the minimum wage. but he obviously does not because he calls it a burden on, not a benefit to, the workers. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that crocodile tears are shed over the figures quoted? Does he also accept that the figures from the Institute of Directors differ greatly from those given by the chambers of commerce?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has already eloquently told us what Ruth Lea, director of research and policy at the Institute of Directors, has said, so I need not repeat it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on asking two or three questions where another colleague would merely ask one, but he did not answer my challenge and say what was the cost to business of Conservative legislation and burdens on business. All he did was quote the number of regulations. That is a key point.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local schools in my constituency are unable to undertake the

  85
  repairs now available to them under Government funds for education because of the dearth of small building firms? When I investigated the problem, I found that the Health and Safety Executive now demands contracts that measure something like an inch thick and specify the safety requirements for each individual at every point in a job. The business man—who is a small builder, not a form filler—has to complete a form for each employee at every point in the job. All that legislation has been introduced under the HSE, and it is making it impossible for people to repair schools and hospitals in my constituency.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office said in her introduction that it is important to achieve a balance. That was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), but no hon. Member, least of all my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, would argue for the repeal of health and safety legislation. There needs to be protection for employees Similarly, I do not oppose the minimum wage. I shed no crocodile tears, as the hon. Member for Preston put it, but the balance must be right.
  Many Labour Members, especially those who sit below the Gangway, were very disappointed when the minimum wage was set at £3.20—I believe that it is now £3.70—given that before the election the Labour party promised to set it at least at £5 an hour. The hon. Member for Preston shakes his head, but if he were to look at the documents that his party produced, he would see that they clearly stated that the minimum wage would be between £5 and £5.50 an hour. I am being generous to the Labour party by using the £5 figure. Nevertheless, the Government were right not to set the minimum wage at £5 an hour. If they had done so, our predictions of 1 million unemployed would have come true.
  Is it not appalling that the Minister for the Cabinet Office twists that argument? She said that we were wrong to argue against the minimum wage and suggest that it would create 1 million unemployed people, but it has not done so because the Government showed some sense of reality when they came to office and set the minimum wage at a more reasonable rate. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is right to say that there must be a balance and that we must ensure that legislation is not so burdensome as to mean that no one is employed at all because firms go out of business.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the care homes industry, which is very extensive, has said that care homes will have to be closed because the minimum wage has increased, but there has been no increase in the payments that they receive for taking care of elderly people? The elderly people will be shunted around like packages, looking for somewhere that can squeeze enough care from the system. This Government will be responsible for that problem.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which involves not just the minimum wage. The Minister for the Cabinet Office will know that in every constituency—Labour as well as Conservative—private care homes are closing because a minimum bedroom size has been specified. That has meant that homes that
  86
  previously accommodated 20 people will have to be altered at high cost and may be able to accommodate only 15 people.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant:I shall give way in a moment.
  If the minimum specification means that a firm goes out of business or has to increase its rates so much that people cannot afford to keep their elderly parents there, will the Government be proud of that? I hope that the hon. Member for Eccles has a helpful suggestion.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's information is plain wrong. The regulations to which he refers will not, in the main, come into force until 2002, and some of them will come in even later. He cannot possibly argue that they are causing economic problems for companies.
  Mr. Fabricant: I said that companies are having to close—and they are. I challenge the hon. Gentleman: if this debate is being watched in Eccles on the Parliament Channel, I bet you anything you like, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the correct parliamentary language. It is not appropriate to refer to people outside the Chamber who might be watching the debate.
  Mr. Fabricant: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. but probably no one is watching us.
  Firms are having to make decisions now about what will come into force in 2002. 1 remind the hon. Member for Eccles that we are already in 2001, so we are talking about next year.
  The hon. Gentleman has a long and respected background in the trade union movement, but I was in business and I know that businesses have to plan more than a year ahead. If I owned a care home and I could see a brick wall less than 12 months ahead of me that meant that my firm would go bust unless I did something now, I would have to do something now. Therefore, the regulations are causing problems. I declare an interest: I have a 90-year-old mum, so I am very conscious of this issue.
  I had hoped that I could have said that I support the Bill unequivocally. Unfortunately, I cannot say that because it is such a loose Bill. We have witnessed an admission from the Minister for the Cabinet Office that has identified her as the £10 billion up, £40 million back Mo, but I suppose that is a little bit nicer than the 10p up, 1p down Chancellor.
  European Union regulations, which have so damaged legislation in this country, have already affected many industries, creating 300,000 unemployed.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman three times, but he never asks a short question. He always asks two, three or four questions in one, so I will not give way. I am reaching the end of my speech because other hon. Members on both sides wish to speak.

  87
  Instead of making faces at me, I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make his own useful contribution.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: No, I will not give way because I am concluding my speech.
  The Bill is condemned by virtue of the fact that it is ineffectual. I repeat one more time that the CBI has said that 3,000 new regulations have been introduced since the Government came into office and the British Chambers of Commerce has identified £9.62 billion worth of legislation that is damaging business. The real proof of the pudding is that, since the Government into power at a time of world economic prosperity, we have lost 300,000 jobs in manufacturing. If the Government are re-elected, the sad thing is that many more than 300,000 jobs will be lost over the next few years.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I am sure that my contribution will not be as exciting as the one that we have just heard.
  It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman made comments similar to those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). They both talked about a cut-and-run Government, but I was interested by the final comments of the hon. Gentleman. It is not a question of if another Labour Government will be returned, but merely of when. The contribution of the right hon. Member for Wokingham was perhaps nothing more than a pre-emptive strike in a leadership bid.
  I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak because I recognise the Bill's importance for two reasons. First, like some of the other hon. Members who have spoken, I am a member of the Deregulation Committee —albeit for just over a year. The general consensus on the Committee is that this Bill has been needed for a considerable time to simplify the current system. Secondly, I represent a rural constituency that is like many others in that it is dependent on small and medium-sized businesses. That fact has come into sharp focus in the past couple of weeks because of the foot and mouth outbreak. My area has been badly affected and we have seen the impact on the local economy. Therefore, it is right that we should try to remove the burdens on small and medium-sized businesses.
  A lot has been achieved in my area thanks to the work of Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway, which has done much to sustain small businesses over many years. That success can easily be measured by the survival period of many new businesses.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the burden of regulation should be lifted from businesses in his and many other constituencies. Does he believe that
  88
  the burden on small businesses in his constituency has become greater or less during the four years that the Government have been in office?
  Mr. Brown: I have spoken to many businesses, and I would say that the burden is less. My constituency can tell a success story and that is reflected in the survival period for small businesses.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does not the Conservative party wish to introduce privatisation arrangements for the industrial injuries compensation benefit? That would add considerably to the costs of small businesses and industry in general, because they and not the Government would be asked to stump up the money for the cost of those arrangements.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right and makes an important point.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office noted earlier, when Lord Falconer opened the Second Reading debate in the Lords, he said:
  "The Bill will provide a major tool for this and future governments to reform, entire regulatory regimes and to tackle unnecessary, overlapping, over-complex and over-burdensome legislation." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 850.]
  That is one of the Bill's key aspects. It is part of the Government's drive to reform outdated, overlapping and over-burdensome regulations on businesses and the public sector. The Bill will enable whole regulatory regimes to be reformed using a tried and tested parliamentary procedure, and that will result in clearer legislation, better targeted regulation and a climate that encourages thriving business while providing proper protection for people at work, consumers and the environment.
  Mrs. Gorman: On protection at work, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all small firms—in fact, anyone who employs anybody—have to have public liability insurance that covers people against injury at work. A small firm could not legally exist without such insurance.
  Mr. Brown: That is right, but we need to consider business and the people whom business employs. Clearly, there is an onus on us all to protect employees. I am sure that the hon. Lady employs staff and that she does her utmost through her insurance to protect them. However, that is not an additional burden that has been put on business by this Government.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: In response to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), my hon. Friend may have implied that insurance prevents accidents from happening, but it does not. Good regulation and good working practices—employers and employees working together and following safe practice—are what stop accidents.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct.
  Mr. Pike: Is it not the simple fact that without regulation, many companies would not have insurance and would have to be taken to court in pursuit of a claim? It is those regulations that benefit the worker.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. He has years of experience and I am sure that he has had to tackle cases of employers who flaunt and break the law.

  89
  The Bill is at the core of the Government's regulatory regime. It will allow them to tackle problems caused by existing regulations. Such measures can cause problems. Fire safety legislation is scattered across 120 Acts of Parliament, which makes it difficult for companies to be sure that they are complying properly with the rules. As someone who comes from an industrial background and who worked for 23 years in the chemical industry—18 of those in the explosives industry—I can say from experience that fire safety regulation is a minefield. It is extremely difficult to understand, even by major employers. Many small and medium-sized businesses find it hard to follow. If we only simplify fire safety regulations, that will be a major step forward for many businesses.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and interesting point. Does he agree that there needs to be consistency between fire brigades? I see him shake his head. Does he not think that it is confusing to have a national organisation with several branches throughout the United Kingdom? Surely it would be helpful to have a consistent standard throughout the country, or at least in England and Wales, because fire brigades interpret legislation differently.
  Mr. Brown: That is not what I am saying. I am concerned about 120 Acts of Parliament, not about fire and safety regulations as followed by fire and safety crews in different fire authorities.
  The Bill could be used to simplify and consolidate rules by means of powerful secondary legislation. Pressure on parliamentary time means that such worthwhile reforms might not be tackled. Hon. Members voiced concern about such pressure in the run-up to a general election.
  The Bill will also give Ministers the power to introduce a code of practice for enforcers if they believe that there is a problem of overzealous enforcement. The code of practice would be taken into account at subsequent hearings, although it would not be binding. The Government have had considerable success in getting local authorities to sign up to their enforcement concordat. The additional power will enable them to intervene to give added protection to business if enforcers are failing to adhere to best practice.
  On the more general issue of regulatory policy, the Government have a wide range of measures in place to ensure that regulations meet the five fundamental principles of good regulation as set out by the better regulation taskforce. They are transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and the need for targeted regulation. Since 1998, no regulatory proposal with an impact on businesses, charities or voluntary organisations should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why non-regulatory action is insufficient. The regulatory impact assessments are usually published for consultation at an early stage so that interested parties can comment, suggest improvements and make corrections.
  The Government have been accused of being more willing to add to the burden of regulation than previous Administrations. We have heard that loud and clear. In fact, the number of statutory instruments is of the same order of magnitude under this Government as it was under
  90
  the previous Administration, ranging from 3,367 in 1995 to 3,475 in 1999. The vast majority of statutory instruments have no impact on business. The separate process of regulatory impact assessments is used to consider burdens that are imposed by regulation. The number of the assessments that show significant costs on business ranges from 180 in 1995 to 166 in 1999.
  Mr. Fabricant: Although I said that we do not want too many regulations because of the amount of paperwork that they create, it is their cost that is important. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of regulations that have been introduced. What did they cost business?
  Mr. Brown: I have to admit that I cannot answer that. However, I am making the point, as did as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), that the statement that there were 3,000 additional regulations over 18 years was way off the mark. There were 3,000 a year in the past three or four years of the previous Government.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has not said how much his Government's regulations cost business. It is bizarre of him to expect us to give such a figure when he will not.
  Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He is right. I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield for not furnishing him with the figures, but I shall be happy to give way if he has them.
  Mr. Fabricant: I was simply going to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). Conservative legislation cost a lot less than legislation introduced by this Government because we did not lose so many jobs at a time of boom.
  Mr. Brown: No doubt we shall all rush to the Library to check that statement.
  We have to consider the Government's approach to regulation. They continue to strengthen systems for controlling red tape. We have established a new ministerial panel to hold Departments to account for their regulatory performance. We have heard again about the creation of the Small Business Service to ensure that the voice of small business is heard throughout Whitehall. A Minister for regulatory reform has been appointed in each Department to advance the better regulation agenda throughout Government. We have established a central unit in the Cabinet Office—the regulatory impact unit—to ensure that new regulations are necessary and meet the principles of good regulation. We have revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments, which was issued in August 2000. New regulatory proposals must satisfy the criterion of benefits justifying the cost. That is vital.
  The independent better regulatory taskforce has been appointed to advise the Government on improving the quality of regulation, taking into account the needs of small businesses and ordinary people.
  Mrs. Gorman: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman genuinely wants to help the small business sector. However, the Conservative Administration established similar organisations, such as the group on small business

  91
  deregulation, and they simply do not work. We have to take small firms out of regulation and trust them. By covering themselves with insurance, should anything sadly happen to an employee or even to the firm's proprietor, they are at least protected. That is about the best we can do if we are to encourage enterprise and small firms to start up.
  Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Lady for acknowledging that I want something to be done. All Labour Members want that. However, I am not convinced that the measure at which she hints would set everything right. What we want is regulation that is not burdensome, not to sweep away regulation altogether, as she implies is desirable.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and I might remain at loggerheads over the cost of regulation. Many wild estimates have been made of the current costs of regulation and its impact on business, ranging from £5 billion by the Institute of Directors to as much as £12 billion by the British Chambers of Commerce. Clearly, both cannot be correct, and I would argue that neither is. The figures confuse the cost of the policy itself—for example, money paid out in the form of the national minimum wage—with the cost of administering the policy, by keeping records, filling in forms and so on. True administration costs—red tape—comprise but a tiny fraction of those sums.
  As one who represents an area that has had extremely low pay, I am not prepared to apologise for introducing the national minimum wage. I served on the Committee that scrutinised the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I do not know what the general election holds for me, but even if I leave Parliament as a result of it and do nothing else in life, I shall be able to hold my head up and say that I served as a member of a party that introduced the national minimum wage in this country. I am proud of that measure, from which the people of my constituency have benefited greatly.
  We make no apology for improving maternity leave, introducing paternity leave, giving millions of employees for the first time the right to paid holidays, or tackling discrimination against the disabled. Those measures also protect good employers—a point that we must always bear in mind. The overwhelming majority of employers are good employers, and our actions must be about protecting them against unfair competition from the unscrupulous few. When introducing those measures, the Government listened to the views of business and made changes to the working time regulations and the national minimum wage to meet concerns and reduce the administrative burden. I believe that the Government will continue to listen.
  Millions of people have benefited from those measures. About 1.5 million workers are now entitled to higher pay as a direct result of the introduction of the national minimum wage; of those, about two thirds are women. The business community now accepts the national minimum wage, and the recent announcement of an increase to £4.10 will be applauded by those who have already benefited from it. Under the working time regulations, 3.1 million workers have for the first time ever the right to paid annual leave. New maternity rights mean that 85,000 women benefit from the increase in the minimum duration of maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks.
  92
  The value of benefits accruing to part-time employees under the part-time workers directive will be £17.6 million. The number of people receiving an increase in non-wage benefits will be 400,000, and 27,000 will receive an increase in pay. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides more than 8.6 million disabled people with the choice and opportunities that others have long taken for granted. Sometimes people feel that such serious issues are overlooked, so that Act has made a huge difference. Stakeholder pensions will give millions of employees access to a good-value, reliable pension scheme.
  It is right and just that we make the comparison with the previous Administration. The number of Acts of Parliament passed in each parliamentary Session is of broadly the same order of magnitude under the current Administration as under the last, as is the number of statutory instruments issued. Less than 5 per cent. of statutory instruments have a significant impact on business. Focusing on the number of regulations pays no regard to the benefits to business, society, individuals and the environment that can accrue from well-designed regulation. In international comparisons, Britain is one of the best places for companies to start, invest, grow and expand. According to the economic outlook published in 1999 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 1998 the UK had the lowest level of product-market regulation of any OECD country, including the United States.
  The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has acknowledged that there is no evidence that regulation is damaging economic performance. The fall is UK unemployment to below 1 million for the first time since 1975 clearly backs up that view.
  Mr. Fabricant: We have to put the lie to that assertion. The Government talk of there being fewer than 1 million unemployed. That is to be applauded, but the truth is that there are fewer than 1 million claimants, whereas the 1975 figure referred to actual unemployed people. There are about 1.5 million people still unemployed. None the less, I congratulate the Government on having at least bucked the trend in manufacturing industry, wherein unemployment has increased.
  Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to listen to what he says, but I remind him that when the Conservative Government claimed that there were 3 million unemployed, the true figure was closer to 4 million.
  On small firms and regulation, the Labour Government's policy is to regulate only when necessary and to ensure that regulation is fair and effective. Should regulation be necessary, the first priority is to make sure that each regulation passes the "think small first" test. We have set up the Small Business Service to work closely with the regulatory impact unit and other regulators to ensure that regulations are enforced in a way that recognises the problems of small businesses.
  As expected, there has been criticism: for example, it has been said that the Bill moves debate on important reforms away from the Floor of the House. In fact, the Bill will not undermine the proper parliamentary process for legislation. It requires thorough public consultation coupled with a tried and tested procedure of thorough

  93
  parliamentary scrutiny. The accusation has also been levelled that the Government have increased the burden of regulation and that the Bill merely loads more burdens on business. The figures do not bear that out: the number of new regulations issued under the current Government is no different from the number issued under the previous Government. In any case, the vast majority of regulations have no impact on business.
  The Government have important plans to use the powers under the Bill. As already announced, we plan to use them to reform our cumbersome fire safety and weights and measures legislation, as well as to free schools to provide the out-of-hours child care services that are so desperately needed and so well used in many parts of the country. Those are the sort of worthwhile changes for which the Bill has been designed.
  It has also been said that the Bill will allow Ministers to bypass Parliament. I totally disagree with that. The Bill merely extends the existing deregulation order-making power, which was introduced by the Conservative Government under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The safeguards on the existing power, which has been policed effectively by the Deregulation Committee in this House and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the Lords, will be supplemented to reflect the breadth of the new power. The Government will not be able to steamroller proposals through using the new order-making power, as the Select Committees have an effective veto and the Parliament Acts will not apply.
  In concluding, I shall comment again on the Conservatives' record. Tories always claim that they will reduce regulation—we heard it said early this evening—but they do not. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as a Minister under the previous Government who tried to reduce regulation on business, said:
  "We would be the first to say that we did not do it very well".— [Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 250.]
  In fact, as has been said on several occasions, the Tories introduced 3,000 regulations in each of their final three years in office. Back in December 1987, the Institute of Directors said:
  "The excessive burden of regulation on business is halting growth and preventing companies from entering new markets…every year the Government has added to red tape".
  Talking about the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea admitted the truth. He said:
  "We passed volumes of new rules and laws, interfering in almost every aspect of business and social life."
  Back in 1995, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pledged that he would reduce the number of different business licences from more than 250. However, his colleague Roger Freeman admitted in January 1997 that they had increased to 365.
  I shall look at endorsements of the Bill, of which we have heard a number today. In response to its publication in draft form in April 2000, the Prime Minister received numerous letters of support—much to the surprise, I am sure, of Opposition Members. Mr. Digby Jones, who has been well quoted this evening, said:
  "I believe the Bill will allow Ministers to more easily remove regulatory burdens on business."
  94
  Mr. Jones hoped that the Bill would
  "be enacted as soon as possible."
  Mr. Ian Handford, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, was similarly supportive. He said:
  "I am writing to say how much we are encouraged following a perusal of the published draft Regulatory Reform Bill…We believe that the Bill will be useful in helping to reduce the overall burden on business."
  George Cox, director general of the Institute of Directors, wrote:
  "I would like to make you aware of our support for the Bill and for the aims which it reflects…We very much hope that Parliamentary time will be found for the Bill."
  This Government are finding time for the Bill.
  Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), I am delighted that our hon. Friend the Minister will review the Bill, and I look forward to its steady progress to the statute book.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: I am pleased to speak in this debate. First, I must declare an interest as I have a small business; naturally, I have an interest in introducing things that will reduce the burdens on us.
  As other members of the Select Committee on Deregulation would accept, we must take a great step in reducing regulation in this country. As a Committee member, I am not alone in saying that we do not feel that we have a sufficiently effective remit. The Bill, or a similar measure, is certainly required to tackle the issue.
  Mr. Bercow: I look forward with eager anticipation to the hon. Gentleman developing his argument. At the outset, will he give me his assessment of the Cabinet Minister's speech?
  Mr. Cotter: I have not made any particular assessment and do not wish to be drawn into anything, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to make an assessment I shall happily assess the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who carried on at excessive length in a dying speech. Presumably, with the election coming, he was trying to mark the Conservative party's cards regarding the reduction of red tape, even though it is very much responsible for it. As I pointed out, Conservative Members were notable by their absence from the Deregulation Committee, which at least tried to address the issues.
  Unlike other hon. Members who spoke, some of whom waxed on, I do not wish to speak for long.
  Mr. Steen: As a fellow member of the Deregulation Committee, it is only fair to say that one regulation alone has been made this year, and one was made last year. Members who have other things to do cannot be expected to hang around on a Committee that does not do anything.
  Mr. Cotter: I would have expected them to be there when we discussed the Bill, but they were notable by their absence.
  I want to press on, as other Members wish to speak. I wish to concentrate on important points and to try to highlight where we must go. We must argue against

  95
  having regulation in the first place. I welcome the Government's establishment of the Small Business Service, which, I hope, will go some way towards ensuring that we do not have unnecessary regulation and that businesses can have more input into the legislative process than they have had in the past. I continue to urge Ministers to ensure that the Small Business Service knits in and is effective. It is in its early days, but Conservative Members do not support the initiative. Indeed, their manifesto proposes cuts in the trade and industry budget, which helps to provide the representation that small businesses need.
  A Bill has been introduced, but the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) talked about consultation with small business being a necessary precursor to ensuring that we do not have regulations that we are now trying to get rid of. I hope that consultation will take place through the Small Business Service and that business Bills will be given longer lead times, so that firms and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and others can give their views before they are enacted.
  I also support the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East on plain speaking. I know that he has been running with that issue; it is essential that we have clear regulation and plain speaking so that we can all understand what is being got at. That should be part of our general approach in Parliament. We should not pass regulations and Bills that we do not understand, but which we expect people in the outside community to understand. I therefore support the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Following my intervention, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who chairs the Deregulation Committee and was here for much of the debate, accepted that the Committee wanted the Government to introduce an annual review of the Bill—or a review at least one year after it was passed. Unfortunately, we did not manage to persuade the Government of that. However, the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members agree that we must have a way of assessing the Bill to see whether it makes improvements. The Committee has decided that it—and, we hope, the new Committee—would wish to undertake that, as parliamentary scrutiny is far more effective.
  Apart from the Bill, any regulation that affects business should be examined by Parliament annually so that we can reassess it and assess the cost of regulation for business and industry, thereby doing the job properly on a rolling basis, year by year.
  The Government, in their wisdom or otherwise, have resisted impact assessments of the Bill. Despite strong arguments from colleagues in the other place, the Government have said that they cannot accept the words "impact assessment" being attached to the Bill. Will the Minister explain what they propose to do instead?
  During my time in Parliament, I have noticed when serving on Committees that an impact assessment of the Bill in question has not always been available at an early stage of our deliberations. Had such impact assessments been available to members of the Committee, many Bills, even over the past four years, would have been improved. I understand that the Cabinet Office is looking into the
  96
  matter. Relevant and accurate impact assessments of Bills at the consultation stage and beyond would be beneficial in ensuring that we do not have the unnecessary regulation that sometimes burdens us.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy in giving way. On impact assessment, does he agree that each new regulation creates a crime, and almost every regulation creates a penalty, which often includes imprisonment for failing to carry out that regulation? Is not that an important reason for us to assess what regulations will do to small firms, to say nothing of the massive bills that will have to be paid to solicitors for taking cases through tribunals and so on? Is not that an unseen part of the need for proper assessment of the cost of the legislation, before we adopt it?
  Mr. Cotter: Indeed. The hon. Lady makes a worthwhile point. As a company director, I am well aware that while I am working in Parliament, I could be held responsible for events that were taking place elsewhere. I was encouraged by a statutory instrument the other day that will result in ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—being brought in more frequently to deal with issues arising from regulation, which can lead to tribunals being established and further burdens for business.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to be clear about what he is proposing. He and I served on the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill, for which, he will recall, the regulatory impact assessments were exceedingly poor. It would have been far better if they had been more accurate in the initial stages, so that they would have illustrated many of the administrative problems to which the Opposition drew attention in Committee. We were subsequently shown to be right, and the Government had to change tack on many of those issues.
  Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that regulatory impact assessments should be attached to the Bill itself, or that a regulatory impact assessment should be attached to each order made under the Bill?
  Mr. Cotter: Certainly, each order should have a regulatory impact assessment. As I understand it, there is also an issue concerning the impact of the Bill itself. I await the Minister's comments on that.
  The better regulation taskforce was established by the Government. The aspects that it examines are determined ad hoc, but it has nevertheless been a worthwhile venture. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in commending the chairman of the better regulation taskforce, Chris Haskins, for his general approach. I hope that we can adopt such a no-nonsense approach in Parliament. For example, clause 3(1) states that the Minister making the order must be of the opinion that it does not remove any necessary protection. Too often, what is seen as necessary protection is not necessary at all.
  Chris Haskins has promoted the idea of cutting through the cackle and getting to the basics. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) referred to the approach of not adopting policies that do not suit small businesses. Such an approach is promoted by Chris Haskins.

  97
  We need an imaginative approach that balances necessary health and safety requirements and what is practical and sensible. For example, there is an organisation dedicated to rolling back red tape for pubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the number of inspectors coming into businesses. Our party believes that the number of inspections should be cut.
  In the case of pubs, there is a dichotomy between inspectors coming in for health and safety or security reasons, and heritage officials coming in if the public house is of historic interest. Recently, the owners of an old pub were asked by their insurance company to install security or safety devices, such as smoke alarms—I do not remember the details—yet the next week, the heritage people said that because the pub was hundreds of years old such work could not be carried out. We must bring common sense into regulation, in Parliament and elsewhere.
  I am happy to say that while I have been in Parliament, and perhaps during the time of hon. Members who have been in this place longer than I have, the ridiculous tea bag tax has not been introduced.
  Mrs. Gorman: The tea bag tax?
  Mr. Cotter: Yes. I shall outline the rough details. If we give tea to our employees, as we all tend to do in life, on a regular basis over a period of years, the tax people can suddenly arrive and ask, "Have you been giving Jack, who works on the lathe, tea for the past 15 or 20 years?" They scribble away and work out what it amounts to. Multiplied by another 20, 30 or 40 employees, that can make quite a bill. Were the tax people to go back 20 years and demand that the resulting bill be paid, that could bankrupt the employer. We want to avoid such nonsense.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank the hon. Gentleman once more. Does he recall the days when VAT was introduced? VAT inspectors went into Chinese restaurants and counted the grains of rice in a portion, to discover whether the restaurant owners were putting in enough tax returns to cover the amount of VAT that they should have charged on portions of rice?
  Mr. Cotter: That sounds ridiculous. I suppose that counting grains of rice is slightly better than counting grains of sand, as the former are slightly bigger and easier to identify, but both activities seem ridiculous. It is difficult to believe that that happened, but the hon. Lady told us about it and I accept her remarks.
  Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the circumstances that affected a small businesses man in my constituency who ran a successful oyster farm? Every so often, he changed the water in which he kept his oysters, but he did not do so too frequently, as it was recirculated. However, the local enforcement officer said, "Look here. We cannot possibly have you circulating the water. You must go to Paignton, pick up sea water, bring it back and keep the oysters in it." That was the requirement, even though the sea water was dirtier than the recirculated water that had previously been used. As a result, the oyster business was closed down. The business man made it clear that he took that decision because he had to use
  98
  dirtier water. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such craziness arises because of the introduction and enforcement of too many regulations?
  Mr. Cotter: I certainly agree. The hon. Gentleman gives an example of such craziness. If the oysters could speak for themselves, they would say "We are happy with this water." Unfortunately, they cannot do that, so we must try to argue their case, although we are rather too late in respect of the oysters in question, which have been drowned or destroyed in inappropriate water. If I had an oyster farm in my constituency, I, too, would follow up such concerns. I shall keep a beady eye on the matter and I am grateful to him for raising it.
  I shall now draw my remarks to a close, probably to groans of delight. I have tried to make some key points, the most important of which is that Parliament should try not to introduce regulation and should seek to reduce it when it has done so. I urge the House and the Government to do all that they can to achieve those aims.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Stewart: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who is a nice man and has a calm manner, although his statements are not always completely sensible.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Deregulation, I appreciate that the current processes for introducing regulation can appear cumbersome, but I agree with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). I support the Deregulation Committee's report and the broad thrust of the Bill. I appreciate that it will have a particular impact on small businesses, which are an important engine of economic development nationwide, as well as in Eccles.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said that the Bill would enable regulatory regimes to be reformed using tried and tested parliamentary procedure. He said that it would result in clearer and better-targeted legislation, and foster a climate that encourages thriving business but provides proper protection for people at work, consumers and the environment. I agree with that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley implied that more pressure should be exerted on Ministers to survey the work of their Departments and actively seek areas that could be deregulated. I believe that a more proactive approach would be welcome.
  However, I am perhaps a bit more radical than some of my colleagues. I argue that the parliamentary system has a weakness that should be addressed with regard to regulation. I believe that there is a stronger argument for a better regulation committee than for the need to deregulate, important though that is. I would like the Government to consider establishing an inspectorate with responsibility not only for encouraging and overseeing regulation, but for identifying the need for deregulation when companies and organisations face unnecessary burdens.
  Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there are good reasons for regulations when they are introduced, they often cease to have effect over time and should therefore be reviewed regularly?
  Mr. Stewart: I am a strong advocate of regulation and its continuing review. My hon. Friend is correct.

  99
  When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) earlier, he said that there was a need for balance. I shall therefore present some other information in the interests of balance.
  I want to comment on what is sometimes contemptuously dismissed as red tape. I am proud of the Government because they have introduced the minimum wage and extended employment rights. Hon. Members know my background and would expect me to be interested in such matters. I am worried about some Conservative Members' comments because they display a lack of balance. It is proper to look to employers' interests to ensure that we maximise productivity. However, striking a balance means that we also have to consider employees' interests, especially their health and safety. In this modern age, we must also surely consider family-friendly policies.
  We have given equal rights to part-time workers, most of whom are women, and an entitlement to four weeks' paid holiday a year. There was no such entitlement in this country until this Government introduced it earlier in the Parliament. That is significant, but some would say that it was modest.
  My first Adjournment debate was on occupational health and safety. I argued for the introduction of roving health and safety representatives so that all companies could benefit from the acknowledged expertise of trade union health and safety representatives. Some people argue that there is constant disagreement between employers, workers and their trade unions. That is a fallacy. There is a healthy recognition among most progressive employers of the fact that the trade union movement has developed strong expertise in health and safety in recent years.
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive is to pilot a scheme such as the one that I suggested. That will spread good practice and improve workplace safety. I get angry when people speak of health and safety as a burden on industry. Safety must always be a priority; safety regulation is an example of good regulation, which is good for business.
  Improved employment rights are not red tape but the embodiment of our commitment to social justice and to ensuring that workers have rights that are appropriate to the workplace in the 21st century. We have some way to go in the United Kingdom before our employees enjoy the same protection as other European workers. A 1999 survey found that we had the longest working hours in Europe. In Belgium, the average working week was 38.4 hours; in Germany, it was 40.1 hours, which was less than the European Union average of 40.4 hours. In the UK, the average working week was 43.6 hours.
  For many years, we have had a worsening problem of long hours. In 1984, 2.8 million people worked a week of more than 48 hours; in 1998, that figure had risen to 4 million—a 40 per cent. increase. The UK is the only European Union country to allow an opt-out from the 48-hour limit. Consequently, in spring 2000, 3 million employees were working more than 48 hours. However, that figure is 25 per cent. lower than that for 1998.
  Mr. Richard Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House any productivity comparisons with other European countries?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall mention productivity later in my speech.
  We have heard reports recently about growing levels of stress at work, and the effect that that has on what we now know as the work-home balance. A TUC survey of trade union safety representatives found that 66 per cent. cited stress as the main hazard at work, and said it affects all types of workers. Some workers feel badly managed; some managers are too overworked to manage properly. Regulation of working hours and conditions has a role to play: it can be beneficial and, at the same time, aid production and development.
  In support of my argument I draw attention to the remarks of someone who is neither a known suspect nor a renowned proponent of trade union rights—Mr. Adair Turner, the former general secretary of the CBI. In The Times on 16 March 2001, he said:
  "Britain's economic performance is only adequate: increased investment, not deregulation, is the key to improvement…Arguments that Britain is being held back by the burden of labour market regulation are based on confused economic theory and contradicted by the facts. If labour market regulation is harming our performance, the impact must be measurable in unemployment figures. But there is no evidence that the minimum wage has destroyed more than a trivial number of jobs and the mild re-regulation of Britain's labour market over the past three years has been accompanied by continually falling unemployment."
  As we know, the latest figures show that unemployment has dropped below 1 million for the first time since December 1975. In my region, the north-west, the number of people in employment has grown by 29,000 over the past year. Since the spring of 1997, employment growth has been 106,000. Last month alone, 28,600 new vacancies were notified to jobcentres in the region.
  We must remind ourselves that we are discussing appropriate and relevant regulation. Labour Members are strongly against burdensome and unnecessary regulation, but one person's red tape is another person's protection. We need appropriate and relevant regulation. I support this important Bill and I shall vote against the amendment.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). My only anxiety on his behalf is that I have not the foggiest idea what he will do when he finally loses his charisma.
  This is a good opportunity to contribute to the debate on an important Bill, and I should like to advance a number of points. The background to the debate is simple. It is an incontrovertible fact—no Labour Member has been able to deny or gainsay it—that the sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which British companies have previously had to contend.
  The lacuna in the position of Labour Members was starkly revealed when several of them were challenged not on the number of regulations on the statute book but on the cost of those regulations. Reading from their prepared texts, they spewed forth various figures relating to what happened in the latter days of the Conservative Government. I have not sought to deny those figures.
  If Labour Members were aware of previous debates on the subject, they would know that during a debate on regulations on small businesses on 8 March 2000, the hon.

  101
  Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham)—a charming contributor to our proceedings and, like me, a parliamentary virgin, if I can put it like that—asked me about the total cost of the regulations that had taken effect in the last three years of the previous Government. I said that, off the top of my head, I did not have the square root of an idea but I would be happy to engage in correspondence with her, if she would find that an enjoyable experience. I am not interested in looking back, and I recognise that the record was not perfect. Nevertheless, the burden of regulation is now greater, more expensive and more difficult to bear for companies the length and breadth of the land.
  On that point, I am happy to take my cue not from Conservative Members but from the authentic representatives of industry and commerce themselves. We learn something significant when we read what they have to say, and listen to their public pronouncements. We all know that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the British Chambers of Commerce and, indeed, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales will typically disagree on a number of matters pertaining to British business. They will have differing views on the merits or demerits of British entry into the European single currency; they will have differing views on the merits or demerits of legislation to counteract the phenomenon of late payment of commercial debt. Of one thing we can be certain, however: they all agree that the burden of regulation is high, that it continues to rise, and that the ratchet needs to be arrested and, wherever possible, reversed.
  Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Not now. Because the hon. Gentleman is my near neighbour, if he behaves himself I will consider giving way to him later when I have developed my argument; but it is important that we do not spare Government Back Benchers the pain of revelation, in public debate, of the enormity of the burdens they have inflicted, through their voice and votes, on companies in this country.
  Those burdens fall principally into four categories. First, there are Brussels directives. I am thinking of, for example, the working time directive, the part-time workers directive—which was transposed into British law via the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000—and the parental leave directive, which was specifically the consequence of the Government's boneheaded decision to sign up voluntarily to the European social chapter, rightly eschewed by the last Conservative Government.
  The second category comprises payroll burdens, about which we have heard very little from Labour Members despite their importance. I refer to, for instance, the working families tax credit, 52 per cent. of whose administrative cost falls on small companies. Let none in this Chamber forget that 99.6 per cent. of British businesses employ fewer than 100 people, that they account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force, or that they generate two fifths of national output. The fact that those companies are burdened by the working families tax credit is therefore important. Moreover, they are encumbered by—for example—the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 1999, and by the regulations that apply to stakeholder pensions.
  102
  These are significant matters. The point that I seek to make—in my characteristically shy, reticent and understated fashion with which Members on both sides of the House are familiar—is that whatever the merits or demerits of the measures we are discussing in and of themselves, they have one thing in common: they shuffle off responsibility from central Government to beleaguered businesses, forcing the latter to become unpaid tax collectors and benefit distributors. That is wrong, that is pernicious, that is damaging, and it is a phenomenon that can continue unchecked only because—with the insouciance that this Government typically display—no DTI Minister serving in the House of Commons has ever run or worked in a business.
  Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Yes, very briefly.
  Mr. Pike: Who transferred the burden of statutory sick pay to employers, and away from the old sick pay scheme?
  Mr. Bercow: I am intrigued by that question. The hon. Gentleman is falling into precisely the trap against which I should have thought one of my earlier paragraphs would warn him.
  The point is—the hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to grasp, but I invite him seriously to treat with it—that I was not in the House of Commons before the last election. I was not a member of the last Conservative Government; I was frequently critical of that Administration. I am simply not interested in playing ping-pong about what happened in the past. The point that I am making to him is that it is possible to do much better. He may believe that the regulatory burden was too great before Labour Members took office, but that is no justification whatsoever for adding to the totality of the burdens with which businesses are encumbered.
  I am therefore sorry to say that, although the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) may think he has a decent point, it is simply not on my radar screen so far as today's proceedings are concerned. I shall not be in any way deterred or diverted by periodic interventions by Labour Members from continuing to ram home the point about the scale of burdens and the number of different categories into which, under this Government, those burdens fall.
  The third example of burdens under this Government is what might be called the alleged domestic "fairness at work" arrangements. Here of course we are talking about statutory trade union recognition—which militates against labour market efficiency, is largely resented by British companies, does not seem to be necessary and cannot contribute to productive potential.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has just had his speech, and I am going to make mine. However, if he behaves himself, I shall happily consider giving way to him later.
  I happen to think that that is an undesirable regulation.
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Bercow: Generosity always gets the better of me, despite my best endeavours to the contrary. I shall give way.
  Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is a bit rich to be arguing about the need for deregulation and fewer regulations. Under the previous, Conservative Government, one of the biggest burdens placed on employers was precisely the type of regulation that he is talking about. It was the outrageous burden of having regularly and persistently to conduct ballots on check-off, which is the deduction of union subscriptions at source. The outrageous nature of the hon. Gentleman's comments shows that the charisma stuff that he is taking is a bit too powerful for him.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was tedious, long-winded and unfocused in equal measure. I have not received a single representation from a business in my constituency—large numbers of which I regularly visit—saying that they strongly approve of the Government's position on statutory trade union recognition and how terribly irksome it was previously to have to conduct regular ballots. I am not entirely clear which planet, or stratosphere, the hon. Gentleman inhabits, but it is not in any way the same as that on which my worthy and industrious constituents of Buckingham live.
  I warn the hon. Gentleman, because I am well disposed to him, that the quality threshold will have to be satisfied if he thinks that he will have another intervention. His performance so far is not very auspicious. Of course, however, he will not divert me from the fourth category of regulation by which companies in Britain are encumbered to a greater extent now than ever before—environmental taxes and regulations.
  Company after company has justifiably complained about the burden that is threatened by the climate change levy and by the extremely detailed, complex and rigorous integrated pollution prevention controls. Many sectors will be badly hit. Those regulations are extremely zealously drafted. The expectation is that they will, as usual in the United Kingdom, be gold-plated. Those who will lose out are companies. Ministers themselves will not have to pay, as they themselves do not run businesses. They themselves are not familiar with enterprise. They themselves will not suffer. However, those businesses will suffer. It is on their behalf and in their interests that I am proud, with my right. hon. and hon. Friends, to speak in this debate.
  The effect of all that regulation can be measured in various ways. However, I thought that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales made a very interesting assessment. In its study, it concluded that, under this Government, companies with between 51 and 200 employees face annually an extra regulatory burden of about £10,500. For companies with between 11 and 50 employees, the amount is £4,700, and for the smallest micro-businesses it is £1,700.
  The significant fact, which is another serious challenge to Labour Members, is that the most recent survey that that organisation undertook revealed that the burden for
  104
  the average company was about £3,600 a year—a burden that had more than doubled since the previous year. Not only is the burden, high, but it continues to rise. The Government do not even acknowledge that fact, let alone propose to do anything about it.
  We know, not only from those small business organisations but from others, how corrosive the impact of that regulation is Accountancy firms, business analysts and policy institutes consistently speak with one voice: they say that the Government are getting it wrong, and that it is time they had the decency to acknowledge the fact and propose remedial action without delay.
  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was passed by the previous Government. I will not dilate on that subject at length, because many hon. Members have, rightly, already touched upon it. Suffice it to say that it was generally agreed, not least during the debate in another place, that the Act had achieved something worth while.
  Mr. White indicated assent.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) signals his assent to that proposition.
  I believe that about 46 deregulation orders have been passed, of which 37 took effect under the previous Government. I salute and compliment Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill in the other place on 21 December, was good enough to admit that the peak dear for deregulation orders was 1996. He did not—for he could not—dispute the observation of the better regulation taskforce, set up by the Government for the purposes of giving advice to the Government, that in recent years the number of such orders had dwindled.
  Yet when the hon. Member for Burnley, the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, was challenged about some of the Government's recent proposals and suggestions for future action, and was asked whether he knew of any obstacle to prevent the passage of those measures under existing legislation, the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous and committed parliamentarian, almost took my breath away—[Interruption.] I say "almost" advisedly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that would be a remarkable accomplishment, as I think the House would acknowledge.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Why did he not finish the job?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman did not succeed in taking my breath away, but I was very surprised when he owned up to the fact that he had made no study of the subject at all. That was unfortunate.
  Worthwhile policy objectives have been accomplished by the 1994 Act—for example, electronic receipt of cheques, and the increase in the number of fundraising events at which charities can sell alcohol. Finally, there is the worthwhile development whereby couples about to get married can book the registry office 12 months in advance of the happy day, whereas before they could only book three months in advance.
  The Act was a good piece of legislation, and the Government have pitifully failed to take advantage of it. They are wringing their hands, displaying their impotence and trying to blame it all on the previous Administration,

  105
  who had done something constructive. Now, at the last minute, and in full recognition of the fact that the Bill will not become law, the Government propose a new measure instead.
  As my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe said on Second Reading in the other place on 21 December, the merit of the 1994 Act was, among other things, that it was a one-way street designed to facilitate deregulation. There was no mixed message; the Act had a clear objective, and demonstrated intent. What is more, it had a track record of achieving something worth while for businesses and customers.
  What we see before us now is a forked-tongued Bill. Its proponents give the impression of not knowing exactly what they want. They want to provide a facility for deregulation, although the track record does not suggest that they are likely to do very much in that regard, but they also want the power to re-regulate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) observed earlier, in a potent contribution.
  The power to re-regulate is worrying, but so, too, is the provision for subordinate provisions orders in clause 4, for it was originally intended that such orders would be subject to the negative assent procedure. There was widespread objection, not least in the other place. As a result of an amendment tabled by the former Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, Lord Borrie, the position was changed. As I understand it, such measures can be introduced either by the negative or by the affirmative procedure. That still does not offer much encouragement or succour to those who, in the four years of this Parliament, have regularly watched the Government ram through obnoxious, burdensome and damaging measures on the nod without the facility of a parliamentary debate. That is something to which the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office should turn his mind.
  In a parliamentary answer on 27 November to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), the Minister listed no fewer than 51 items for future deregulation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office mentioned no fewer than five in this debate, spanning three or four Departments. The interesting point about those 51 items is that only five of them relate to the Department of Trade and Industry. Nine are the business of the Home Office, eight are the business of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, five are the business of the Department of Health, five are the business of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, four are the business of the Lord Chancellor's Department and four are the business of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We are talking about a large area of regulation that does not relate to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mr. White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that most of the regulations proposed for deregulation in the Select Committee on Deregulation came from Departments other than the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman is developing a point about deregulation. Will he address the issue of how to deal with inappropriate, out-of-date and anomalous regulations?
  Mr. Bercow: If my proposal were adopted, there would be a system of sunset regulation. A regulation would automatically lapse or expire on a given date and
  106
  it would be for Parliament to decide to renew it. That is a specific and concrete response to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I am concerned about the scope for deregulation and the number of Departments that it involves. I make this point to illustrate the need for a joined-up, properly targeted, suitably co-ordinated Government programme. That is what leads me to the position of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman simply does not seem to grasp the significance of the problem that he faces. In an apparently important speech to the British Chambers of Commerce in Glasgow on 3 June 1999, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the Government had to rethink—the word is his, not mine—their approach to deregulation if they were to "make a difference". That was why he had asked his Department to conduct "a systematic review" of the regulations for which, he said, he had responsibility.
  It is precisely the narrow, inward-looking, complacent and, if I may say so, navel-gazing approach exhibited by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which shows us why the Government have made such a mess of this area of public policy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire indicated earlier, the Opposition are simply not content with such a piecemeal, half-hearted and superficial approach to deregulation. On the contrary, my right hon. and hon. Friends propose the establishment of a deregulation commission for which the regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office would work. We insist that there should be a total audit of the cost of all Government regulation. When I had the privilege to introduce the Regulations on Small Businesses (Reduction) Bill under the ten-minute rule on 27 April 1999, I was astonished when, in advance of my presentation, I received a written answer from the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), which indicated that the Government did not publish, and moreover that they had no intention of publishing, a statement of the annual costs of regulation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made the point clearly—as the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), has regularly done—that we intend in government to conduct a total audit of the cost of regulation. Once that cost has been established, each Department under the next Conservative Administration will then be given a target for reducing the cost of regulation and will be obliged annually to report on the measures that it has taken and the progress that it has achieved in pursuit of that objective.
  Where regulations are essential, and I accept that sometimes they are, we propose longer lead times for consultation. A minimum of three months should be regarded as the norm. There is no reference to that in the Bill. There should be a minimum period of three months for the requirement to implement regulations. That is not referred to in the Bill, and when the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the debate, I should like to know why.
  We believe that there should be exemptions for small firms from some of the most damaging regulations. We often hear it said, in Labour Members' criticism of such a proposal, that that might allow small companies to gain an unfair advantage over large companies by

  107
  circumventing, for example, health and safety legislation. Obviously, no such opportunity should exist, but is it not illustrative of the anti-enterprise mindset of Labour Members and their unhealthy post-election but continuing dalliance with representatives of big business that they always see things from the point of view of big companies, corporations and institutes?
  What about the rather more commonplace fact that large companies have an advantage over small because they are able, more readily and without pain, to absorb the costs of regulations? They have in-house lawyers, personnel departments and accountants. None of these matters is as problematic for them as it is for a struggling small firm that is trying to recruit staff, to expand its market, to sell products, to satisfy its customers and thereby, perhaps, to become a little larger. The point about exemptions is important, as indeed is the point about sunset regulations.
  In future, we want regulations to work on the basis so successfully practised in large parts of the United States. A regulation would automatically lapse or expire on a given date. If Parliament, in its wisdom and on the strength of a practical assessment, judged that the regulation had been worth while, there would be nothing to stop it renewing it. If it did not think that the regulation had been efficacious, it would decline to do so. Those are sensible, practical and thought-through measures from a party that is not only committed to, but immersed in, British enterprise. They are wholly alien to Labour Members, who are just not familiar with the thinking of companies, and particularly that of small companies.
  Before I conclude, I want to say something about the European context. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—he who should be silent—chunters from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of what I am saying. He was not present for much of the debate. He did not hear the very long speeches—which, on the whole, were not very illuminating—that Labour Members delivered. We have the opportunity to comment on the Bill. His party has a large majority. I do not begrudge it that majority, but scrutiny is important and I will have my say. He will not stop me having my say, and the sooner he realises that, so much the better.
  I always listen to the Minister for the Cabinet Office with interest. I do not wish to embarrass her unduly, but I have long had considerable respect for her. However, in preparing for the debate, I was a little taken aback by one or two points on Europe that I encountered. I am sure that she recalls that on 21 July 1999 the Cabinet Office published what was called a guide to better European regulation, for the benefit of people devising, negotiating, implementing or, for that matter, communicating the content of new European regulation. It was a toolkit for how they might more effectively go about that. That was followed, on 18 October, by her visit to Brussels.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Lady remembers what she said on that occasion, but I do. In talking to her colleagues, she said that she was pleased that the new Commission attached such importance to the pursuit of a better regulatory framework. She added that better regulation was a key area for the success of the European Union. These people never talk about deregulation,
  108
  my hon. and right hon. Friends will readily understand, and I am bound to tell her that I was astonished to hear that that was what she said.
  The right hon. Lady is an experienced parliamentarian and public servant. but is she unaware of the extent to which this country is already ground down by excessive European regulation? Of course we often make the mistake of gold-plating such regulation ourselves—we add to it and make it more burdensome; it becomes increasingly expensive—but the origin of much of that which belabours us is the European Union.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this country has one of the lowest levels of regulation in Europe. During my visit to Brussels. I worked to achieve a clear level playing field on regulation—that is what is important in Europe—and I have done so since. Our businesses suffer because others treat regulation differently.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not unsympathetic to the principle of a level playing field, although my main concern is that our regulatory burden should be as low as is consistent with safety, decency and propriety.
  The right hon. Lady makes the point, as did a number of Labour Members, that the regulatory burden in this country is lower than that in most EU member states. A degree of speculation is involved because the empirical evidence is by no means clear, but in so far as that is true, it is not least because, for many years, deregulatory Thatcherite policies were applied in this country when burdensome regulatory and socialistic policies were being implemented in those member states. I am prepared to concede, though I do not know for certain, that the burden might be lower here than in those countries.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, because I intend to respond to the right hon. Lady. The hon. Gentleman will have to hear me out.
  Many European Union member states might face more statutory regulation than we do. They tend more readily to sign up to 'high-falutin' declarations and statutory commitments, but the right hon. Lady must concede, because she effectively did so in her intervention, that there is frequently a chasm between what the European Union says in statute and what it does in practice. She really must note that central point. We sign up to a proposition and zealously enforce it; our European partners frequently sign up to what would be burdensome impositions—
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No [Interruption.] No, I shall not give way.
  Our European partners frequently sign up to burdensome propositions without having the slightest intention to give themn effect in practice.
  I want to conclude—
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: 1 have said before and I say again to the hon. Gentleman—who has had many opportunities to

  109
  intervene and we have all enjoyed listening to his dilations—that I am not giving way. I do not need to repeat the point. The hon. Gentleman can resume his seat and absorb the remainder of what I have to say, on which I should be grateful if the Minister for the Cabinet Office would reflect.
  In two treaties, there is an over-arching power from which this country stands to suffer. I refer first to article 3b of the treaty of Maastricht, so I am making a non-partisan point—[Interruption.] I emphasise to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East that I am making a non-party-partisan point. Article 3b of the treaty was about subsidiarity. It was designed to reassure those of us who were concerned that the overweening power of the European Union was stifling and circumscribing this country's capacity for national self-government. Article 3b states—
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way. I intend to make my point. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to expect him to let me do so.
  Article 3b states:
  "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
  Supporters of the incorporation of article 3b would have us believe that it is a great protection of the rights of nation states. I argue that in fact it is the very language of a centralised federal state from which crumbs from the top table can periodically be cast down. In effect, that power enables the institutions of the EU to initiate legislation on a panoply of fronts and we are almost powerless to resist.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I have already made it clear that I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I intend to develop my point.
  In the circumstances that I outlined, it is not credible for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to pretend that we are protected from the burden of regulation and from the increasingly omnipotent power of the European Union.
  Finally, the position was worsened at the time of the treaty of Amsterdam, the protocol to which—on subsidiarity and proportionality—stated:
  "The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the Institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
  To a distinguished intellectual such as the Minister, that ought to be clear. It means that the power relationship has not changed: the Court is supreme; the existing acquis is sacrosanct and there is no prospect of a rolling back of
  110
  the frontiers of European supranational socialism. In those circumstances, it is not reasonable for the right hon. Lady to pretend that the whole tidal wave of European supranationalism can be stopped or reversed. That is how serious the situation is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The matter under debate is regulation and deregulation.
  Mr. Bercow: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for that reminder.
  Notwithstanding the arcane and circumlocutory language of article 3b of the treaty of Maastricht and of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, they are potentially and directly relevant to whether we can deregulate, and if so, how and to what extent. The answer is, "Not enough."
  The burden of regulation is greater. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was a good measure from which real benefits flowed. The Government have contrived a feeble excuse—at the last knockings of this Parliament—to introduce an alternative measure, having wholly failed to make proper use of that which was already on the statute book.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends propose an altogether better course—an ambitious, robust and deregulatory course that will commend itself to business. We intend to persist with that course, and I commend that proposition to the House.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: After that tour de force from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), what more is there to say? He said it all in a marvellous speech. I very nearly could not stand up because I was so spellbound by the content and force of his delivery and contribution. In the 10 minutes available to me in this debate, I want to say that it is not fair to those in the Public Gallery to hear such esoteric debates. I feel that one of my jobs as a modest and senior Back Bencher is to help those in the Public Gallery, and those hon. Members who have not the intelligence to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, to understand what the debate is all about.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, but perhaps he has forgotten that we do not refer to the Gallery.
  Mr. Steen: I had forgotten that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad to be reminded of that archaic approach.
  I want to make one or two comments for the benefit of those hon. Members who have not had the advantage of listening to all the debate. I have been involved in deregulation for many years. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and spoke in the debate on Second Reading. I used to be chairman of the Conservative party's deregulation committee.
  I want to make this simple. As I understand it, the Bill has two aspects, the first of which really tells us that the Select Committee on Deregulation, of which I am a member, has run out of material to deal with. We have

  111
  dealt with one matter this year, and we dealt with one last year. Unless we broaden the scope of the Deregulation Committee, we shall have to close it down. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) wants a job—he has done it very well—the Government have decided that they should widen the scope of the deregulatory initiative, but that is a curious concept.
  Instead of deregulating, the Deregulation Committee will be given an increased portfolio of existing rules and regulations that it can amplify. That interesting concept will involve not getting rid of regulations, but gold-plating existing ones and adding to them. That is what the new Select Committee on Deregulation will deal with, but because of the danger of doing so without some controls, the Government have included the so-called five tests—it is like the 10 plagues in the Old Testament. The five tests are extraordinary, and I do not know how they will work. First, there is the necessary protection test; then the reasonable expectations test; then the proportionality test; then the fair balance test; and, finally, the desirability test.
  Given how long such matters take, how will the Select Committee work out the balance involved in, for example, the reasonable expectations test, which was recommended by the Deregulation Committee? The test demands that the Minister making the order must be of the opinion that it will not prevent an individual from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
  Under the proportionality test, the imposition of any new or increased burden must be proportionate to the benefit that is expected to result. Under the fair balance test, in the case of the imposition of new or increased burdens, the Minister must be of the opinion that the provisions of an order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual.
  Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steen: No, I shall not give way.
  The desirability test—a new test—was inserted into the Bill as a result of an amendment in the Lords. In the case of the imposition of a new or increased burden, the Minister must be of the opinion that it is desirable to make the order, because it either removes or reduces a burden elsewhere, or has other benefits for those currently affected by the burden. Those five tests must be instilled into the minds of every member of the Committee, and they must work out whether they should allow the amendment regulation measure to go forward.
  Conservatives Members would like to make it clear to Departments that new measures should be extended or introduced only if old measures are repealed. There would be a balance, so that each time a new or extended measure is introduced, we would get rid of another one. That is an interesting approach to regulation.
  The problem is that, if one uses any one of three words, one can get away with any rule or regulation. If one puts up one's hand and says "hygiene", people immediately say, "Let's have a new regulation." However, things have got so clean in Britain that, if one goes abroad, one gets ill. The immune system of many people in this
  112
  country has been affected by the paranoid obsession with keeping everything so clean. When our constituents go to mainland Europe, many of them become ill.
  Let us take the example of water. Water in the south-west is so pure that people going to other parts of Europe get ill because the water there is not as pure. We have gone completely haywire about hygiene. People in shops now wear plastic or cellophane gloves, but I am told that there are more germs on those gloves after half an hour than there are on the human hand.
  The hygiene laws have caused more and more people extra expense, but one would have thought that there would be fewer incidents of food poisoning as a result. in fact, there are more incidents—the cleaner we become, the more ill the majority of people get. It does not follow that introducing more hygiene rules and regulations leads to a healthier and happier society.
  Another buzzword is "security". As soon as one uses the word "security", one can pass any new rule or regulation. In addition to "hygiene" and "security", there is the term "safety". Everyone will say that we must introduce a new regulation to make something safe. Therefore, the Bill will extend and not reduce rules and regulations. They may be better, but a raft of extensions to existing rules will be introduced.
  A second aspect of the Bill worries me even more. It is about a European style civil service approach to appeal. I tabled an amendment to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bi11 with my colleague who was the Member for Scarborough at that time. When there is a disagreement between local officials and a local business, my amendment would have meant that the matter could have gone to a local magistrates court by way of appeal. The court would have been able to decide at a local level who was right or wrong and assess whether the correct interpretation had been made.
  As I understand it, the new power in the Bill relates to the concordat that no one has mentioned even though we have been debating the issue for six hours. However, the second aspect of the Bill is all about the concordat. No one knows what it is but what was a voluntary concordat has now become enshrined in the Bill. That means that if a local business man is not happy with the rules and regulations that have been applied by a local authority to his business, he will be able to appeal to the Minister.
  When the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office winds up, it would be useful if he could tell us how a local business that is unhappy with a local authority's enforcement could contact the Minister. Will the Minister now become judge and jury, and is that against the provisions of the European Court of Human Rights? Under the Bill, a local person can appeal to the Minister for an interpretation of an Act of Parliament that has been passed through this Chamber. That is a curious new development. No one quite understands the concordat. It was a voluntary agreement, but it is now a statutory requirement. The Minister should deal with that important issue.
  Although I have lot spoken for 35 minutes like some hon. Members—good though those contributions were—I hope that I have encapsulated the essential, pithy parts of the Bill in 10 minutes. I hope that the House will find that a help.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I apologise to the House, in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for not being here throughout his contribution. I had to go to a meeting of the Committee of Selection in Committee Room 12 to deal with one of the 15 or so statutory instruments that were introduced today. I can see 14 or 15 more on the Table waiting to find their way on to the statute book and to burden our businesses.
  The Bill reflects the Government's schizophrenia. The Minister for the Cabinet Office said how marvelously well the small business sector was doing, how well everything was running and what a fantastic job the better regulation taskforce was doing. She gradually slipped into arguing that the Bill was needed because the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was not strong enough, completely forgetting why the Labour party voted against it. When the roles were reversed and I was Minister with responsibility for small business, I faced the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who was the, shadow Minister. She was a powerful advocate and berated us about regulations. She hammered into us and said, "Under a new Labour Government, when we sweep to power, it will be different." She was right on both counts. I was foolish enough to think that she was going to do something about regulation. I was wrong.
  There has been much talk about regulations. All I can say is that their number has risen remorselessly under this Government. I hope that the House will accept Library figures. When the Conservatives departed from office in 1997, there were 3,114 regulations. In 1999, there was a record figure of 3,694—up 15 per cent. Provisional figures for 2000 show that the Government have broken the record with 3,863 regulations. That is a huge increase, yet the Government lecture us on what should be done.
  In the past four years, regulations hive swamped small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) explained that under the previous Government, the 1994 Act dealt with 37 measures in a couple of years. Only 11 or so have been tackled in the past four years. There is a delicious irony. The most recent deregulatory measure—the. Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 2000—was produced at the same time as the Bill was introduced in the other place. The Government's major achievement in four years is the deregulation of Sunday dancing. I do not know whether you are a closet Sunday dancer, Mr. Speaker, and go to tea dances, but you can now do so without fear of the long arm of the law feeling your collar and taking you away for committing a crime. That is the Government's triumph, and it reflects their conviction.
  Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that at least we dealt with Sunday dancing ? The Conservative Government tried to deal with that issue but got their solution wrong and had it rejected.
  Mr. Page: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's acknowledged expertise on Sunday dancing and I do not challenge his ability to deregulate it. When he leaves the Chamber tonight, he may do so surrounded by the warm glow of knowing that that has been his contribution to the House of Commons in the past four years.
  114
  If the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was not strong enough despite containing the necessary powers, what was there to stop the Government working in tandem with the Deregulation Committee to ensure that if the Committee wanted to remove one regulation or more, the Whitehall sausage machine—the red tape production factory-could not produce another regulation to replace it? About 100,000 regulations have been laid on our businesses in the past 50 years.
  The Bill represents only one half of the solution to the problem. The system is a job-creation project: one part of a Department churns out and gold-plates regulations; then, two years later, after everyone has forgotten who produced the regulations and who was responsible for then, the officials use the Bill's powers to reform, repeal or recast a new set of regulations. The truth is that the Bill does nothing to stop the sausage machine of Whitehall. Even if it works—I have my doubts about whether it will—no one in Whitehall will tackle the red tape tangle. There is nothing to stop Departments from pushing out record numbers of regulations every year.
  I endorse the recommendation made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. We need an independent commission to examine all new regulations, independently assess their cost and, if necessary, say no. Then, the statutory instrument concerned could be debated by Parliament with full knowledge of the commission's serious doubts about it. That is what the Conservative party wants and the policy will appear in its manifesto.
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office gave the game away when she mentioned nil compliance costs—a balance. Surely, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce burdens on business, not merely to hold the overall burden at the same level. She is supported by the explanatory notes to the Bill issued by the Cabinet Office, which set out the balance between reducing and removing burdens far more fairly than I can. Paragraph 51, which refers to clause 1(3), states:
  "the power cannot be used to re-enact burdens, impose or increase burdens, or remove inconsistencies or anomalies, without also removing or reducing burdens."
  That is fine, but it continues:
  "However, the subsection does not make any numerical linkage between the burdens removed and those imposed, so the former need not necessarily outweigh the latter."
  After all the magnificent words up front, the truth is that the Bill offers no guarantee that there will definitely be a reduction in burdens on business.
  In plain English, rather than the language of Sir Humphrey, the main order-making power in the Bill permits an increase in the regulatory burden; unlike the 1994 Act, it does not require a reduction. All Ministers' rhetoric about new Labour's commitment to reduce the impact of regulations on activities of all sorts in the UK is at wide variance with that permissive power. It will come as no surprise to Labour Members to learn that the Conservatives will seek to amend that extraordinary latitude allowed to Ministers when the Bill is in Standing Committee. I am well aware that clause 1(1) insists on the test of proportionality—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) waxed lyrical—if an existing provision is re-enacted,
  "where the burden is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from the re-enactment"

  115
  or if a new provision is made by order which
  "is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".
  I see from the debate in another place that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, Lord Falconer, flushed with his success at the dome, tried to argue that only a small number of people might face increased burdens if Ministers sought to
  "rebalance"—
  what a lovely, imprecise word—
  "an entire regulatory regime".[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 853.]
  I fear that Lord Falconer's advocacy was met with considerable scepticism. No one can be sure that changes to entire regulatory regimes will affect only relatively small numbers of people.
  The fact is that the Bill was improved in the other place by the Opposition coming together and drafting amendments. In its original form, it could have meant added burdens, without the dropping of old ones. The amendments altered that and, fortunately, the Government have taken them on board. The amended clause 1(1)(c) means that a new regulation cannot come into force without an old one going.
  Again, I can see the stealthy hand of officialdom at work in the estimation of costs. There has been some improvement to the original Bill, but the announcement of cost estimation comes too late in the process; it is in the remit of officials, rather than of people in the real world as it is in our manifesto commitment. We would ask a commission, made up of independent business men and women and staffed by non-officials, to judge the costs of a Bill.
  However, it seems that, after public consultation, estimates of costs will appear. That is far too late in the process. The estimates should be up front and part of the consultation process. How can one consult with the public and say, "By the way, we will let you know the cost later"? I am afraid that the Bill has been introduced without consideration; it does not take our Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and make it work. The Act was not supported, and we must ask ourselves whether the Bill will be.
  In a powerful and penetrating speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said forcefully that the Bill was a cynical measure that was being introduced just before a general election to head off the howls of complaint from business men and women who have had to deal with burdens imposed by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to all those burdens and their effect on our business men. In government, I was berated by the Labour spokesman, who said that the Labour party would do something about regulation; it would cut it and make things better. However, in four years, the Government have dealt with 11 deregulations and, at the same time, rammed though a 15 per cent. increase on the previous highest level of regulation. I am afraid that it is a case of once bitten, twice shy. I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Conservative amendment.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Swinger): We have had a full and interesting debate t n an important, powerful and perfectly formed Bill. Some contributions were longer than expected, and in my reply I shall probably not be able to deal with every point that was made. During the debate, I prepared an hour-long speech, but thanks to the major contributions from, the Opposition, I am down to a 15-minute speech.
  Two aspects of the debate surprised me. The first was that the Opposition have not accepted the principle behind the Bill. When their Conservative colleagues in the other place accepted the principle, I naively expected the Conservative party in Parliament to speak with one voice. The second point has been reiterated by several Members and is due, I believe, at best to a misunderstanding, and possibly to hon. Members being disingenuous. The Opposition have praised to the hilt the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and we agree that it has done some useful work, but they have described as trifling and trivial a Bill that builds on it but which has a wider power.
  Yes, the 1994 Act could deal with single items of regulation that were burdensome, but do the Opposition not want to use a parliamentary process that has proved satisfactory to deal with matters such as fire regulations and weights and measures that need reforming? Those regulations are in various pieces of primary and secondary legislation, and business could benefit from that legislation being re formed. Do the Opposition want the burdens created by different regulations under different Acts to be dealt with? We certainly want the regulations to be dealt with.
  The debate has gone all over the place. Regulations cover all walks of life, and we have been taken for a walk around Europe by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We have discussed fish, oysters, transport. gambling, dancing, lambing, pigs, building directions and telecommunications. There is almost nothing that we have not debated, so clearly I cannot respond to all the points raised.
  In general terms, to make sense of the red tape debate, policy costs must be distinguished from administration costs. That distinction has not always been apparent in the debate today. The Government make no apology for and are proud to have introduced the minimum wage, protecting workers from having to work excessively long hours and making it easier for parents to maintain a balance between the it work and family duties.
  It is extremely misleading to argue that entitlements and benefits that individuals receive constitute bureaucracy or red tape. The real cost of administering Government policies are a fraction of what has been suggested. The hon Member for Buckingham asked for facts. Here are same facts: the annual cost of all employment legislation introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry since 1997 is approximately 1 per cent. of the annual wages and salaries bill for the economy as a whole. That is just under £4 per employee per week, and almost all of that is due to providing extra benefits for workers.
  Although the debate has been comprehensive, it is notable that the ferocious debate that took place during the introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as it then w is, has not been replicated. Hon.

  117
  Members have accepted the super-affirmative process that is part of that Bill. The broad order-making power, which has the effect of removing burdens, has evolved directly from the power in the 1994 Act. The reason that that has happened is relatively easy to understand. It is because of the diligence and effectiveness of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the ocher place and the Deregulation Committee in this House. They have proved that the worries expressed by Labour Members when the 1994 Act was introduced were unfounded. The Deregulation Committee has reported five times in respect of the Bill. It did so twice as a result of initial consultation on the order-making power and three times following the Bill's publication in April 2000. Its most recent report was published last Friday. Its views have shaped the Government's thinking on aspects of the Bill such as the reform of common law. As has been repeatedly stated, the procedures set out in the Bill are based on consensus, which has largely been achieved through the Committee system.
  The Deregulation Committee's work has been truly invaluable. It made a number of recommendations, the most immediately relevant of which is that subordinate provisions orders should be made by affirmative resolution. The Government have responded by agreeing to an amendment tabled in another place by Lord Borrie to ensure that orders can stipulate whether the negative or affirmative procedure should be used. In its latest report, the Committee welcomes the commitments made by Ministers in the Lords. I am delighted to repeat those commitments, which the hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Cotter) asked me to reiterate. First, I am happy to confirm that the order-making power will not be used for large and controversial measures. Secondly, the Government would not proceed with, in order against the Committee's wishes. Thirdly, the Government will report in three years' time on the procedural workings and constitutional implications of the power.
  The Bill's second power is a new reserve power to set out a code of good enforcement practice. One or two of the comments that were made showed that some hon. Members did not understand that simple point. The reserve power has not received much comment, but bad enforcement can be the most burdensome part of regulation. The light-touch nature of the power was developed with input from a consultative exercise involving enforcers and those subject to enforcement. The power is intended to counter unjustifiably inflexible or over-zealous enforcement. It allows the Government to exert pressure on enforcers who fail to apply best practice along the lines of the concordat.
  Mr. Redwood: When will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provide clear, consistent, transparent and fair regulations for farmers? It is currently all over the place and is offering all sorts of different rules about the movement of animals that need to be moved.
  Mr. Stringer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the chance to explain the basic misunderstanding that he demonstrated in his speech. The Bill allows a new code of practice to be introduced when it is shown over time that enforcers are not behaving reasonably and proportionately. Clearly, such provision does not apply to the emergency situation in which agriculture and farmers currently find themselves.
  118
  My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) — [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only fair to allow the Parliamentary Secretary a hearing. Conversations may occur outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friends' contributions demonstrated the considerable understanding of the deregulatory process and of the nature of the Bill that they have gained from their participation in the proceedings of the Deregulation Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East spoke about the need for objectives in the process of policy making and regulation. That is an explicit part of the regulatory impact assessment. At the start of the process, the objective of Government policy must be properly considered. Before we think about regulation, we must decide whether our aims can be achieved by self-regulation, co-regulation, codes of practice or other means.
  I think that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) got to the heart of many points. Unfortunately, he was wrong. He went through the regulations, quoted from an article that I had written for The Times, and said that the number of regulations had remained constant. In the article, I cited the number of overall regulations. Of the statutory instruments agreed in the past year, only 4 per cent. of regulations apply to business. In the last full year of the Conservative Government, the figure was 7 per cent. That means 230 regulations that put a burden on business compared with 126.
  Mr. Lansley: Let us get to the heart of the matter. Do the Government intend the measure to be used to introduce orders that have a net deregulatory effect—yes or no? If the answer is yes, will that provision be included in the Bill?
  Mr. Stringer: The Bill makes it clear that each regulatory reform order must contain a deregulatory element.
  Most Conservative Members' comments have not been about the Bill, but about regulation in general. I concede that the Government, like every other Government in the world, are not perfect at regulation. We introduced the Bill because we want to improve our performance. Clearly, Conservative Members do not want to improve or to understand the international and historical comparisons.
  Independent reports confirm that our performance on regulation compares favourably with that of other countries. According to the economic outlook of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which was published in December 1999, the UK has the lowest product-market regulation of any OECD country. The intelligence unit of The Economist found that the UK was ranked second in the 60 largest economies in the world for places in which it was good to do business. They were rated against 70 factors, including flexibility of the labour market and openness to foreign investment. We are currently the subject of an OECD study on regulatory performance. It will establish in greater detail the effectiveness of our measures to combat over-regulation.

  119
  It is instructive to consider our performance not only internationally but historically. Comparisons with the performance and aspirations of the Conservative party are telling. The rhetoric that we have heard today matches that of Conservative Members in the past. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the 1994 Act would be used hundreds of times to repeal burdensome regulations. From 1994 to 1997, it was used 37 times. In 1995, the right hon. Gentleman pledged that he would reduce the number of different business licences from more than 250. By 1997, it had increased to 365.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who was Minister with responsibility for small businesses, admitted in 1997 that, since the beginning of the deregulation initiative in 1994, the Department of Trade and Industry had repealed 93 regulations but had introduced 315. Between the beginning of the deregulation initiative in 1994 and the 1997 election, 13 times as many regulations were introduced as were scrapped.
  With such a record, Conservative Members should quietly and thankfully support the Bill. However, they have used it as an opportunity to break their trappist silence on the economy. Conservative Members' target has been not the complicated matter of improving the Government's regulatory performance, but improvement in workers' rights and the protection of the environment.
  The Opposition failed to light their bonfire of red tape because it was based on'a simplistic analysis of the impact of regulation on business. The Bill is one part of the Government's programme to improve regulatory performance without reversing necessary protection. I urge hon. Members to support Second Reading and to reject the amendment
  Question put, That the amendment be made:-
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 284.

  Division No. 158]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cran, James

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bercow, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Blunt, Crispin

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Evans, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Flight, Howard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gill, Christopher

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  120

  Green, Damian

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Horam, John

  Ruffley, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Key, Robert

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spring, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Steen, Anthony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Loughton, Tim

  Townend, John

  Luff, Peter

  Tredinnick, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyler, Paul

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Maples, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Whittingdale, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Moore, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisoury)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Ottaway, Richard

  and

  Page, Richard

  Mr. James Gray.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blackman, Liz

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainger, Nick

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Austin, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Browne, Desmond

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burgon, Colin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Berry, Roger

  Cann. Jamie

  Best, Harold

  Caplin. Ivor

  121

  Caton, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clelland. David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cohen, Harry

  Hurst, Alan

  Coleman, Iain

  Hutton. John

  Colman, Tony

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Cox, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones. Ms Jenny (Wolve h'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones. Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Jowell Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce. Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Cona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Te y (Worsley)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway. George

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWilliam, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  122

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden. Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Speller, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

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

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stringer, Graham

  Mudie, George

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Naysmith Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner Bill

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pearson, Ian

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pond Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pope. Greg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Derek (Hatton

  )

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tynan, Bill

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roche. Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roy, Frank

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Samar, Mohammad

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Stringer: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]:

  Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 29th March.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
    The motion proposes that the Committee stage of the Bill should be completed by Thursday 29 March. It also provides for the Committee to sit twice on the first day. It further provides for the standard procedure for the Third Reading debate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members leaving the Chamber must do so quietly.
    Mr. Stringer: We believe that the motion provides adequate time for the Committee to scrutinise what is, after all, a short 15-clause Bill, which has undergone extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. Let me remind the House of that scrutiny, which consisted not only of public consultation but of scrutiny by the Deregulation Committee in this House and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in another place. As in previous debates, those Committees' reports have proved invaluable.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the Minister consider that arguments adduced on Second Reading should affect the amount of time given for the Committee stage?
    Mr. Stringer: That is a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee—but, having listened to the Second Reading debate, I am confident that the time allocated will be adequate to deal with all the points that have been raised, especially given the length of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister has already expressed the opinion that we—
    124
    I assume that he included himself in that plural—believed that the scrutiny time was sufficient. That being so, he is in a position to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Will he please tell us now whether he thinks that arguments raised on Second Reading affect his judgment in any way?
    Mr. Stringer: I obviously did not answer that point to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I answered it as clearly as I am going to. It might have been helpful to the debate—or perhaps not—if the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) had turned up and listened to the arguments. He was noticeable by his absence throughout the entire debate.
    The Bill has also undergone rigorous debate in another place, concentrating on its parliamentary and constitutional aspects. As a result, the Bill has been amended and now contains even stricter safeguards than before. As a result of amendments made in another place, every order must now be based on deregulatory measures, which I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will welcome.
    This is not some skeleton Bill, to be fleshed out during the parliamentary process. It is a fully thought-through product, and the Government see no need to make any further amendments to it. Therefore, the time in Committee can be spent on debating the issues in the Bill, not on considering Government amendments. We have no intention of producing any amendments in Committee at this stage.
    One of the most important features of the Programming Sub-Committee is that it gives Opposition Members the opportunity to decide on priorities. It will be for them to stipulate the amount of time that the Standing Committee will take in examining particular aspects of the Bill.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: The Minister has stipulated that he is not at all affected by the Second Reading debate and has guaranteed that the Government have no intention of proposing amendments in Committee, so what is the point of having a Committee stage?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman—I am sure inadvertently—misquotes me. I said that I was sure that sufficient time had been allocated by the programme motion to take care of all the points that had been made on Second Reading As I said in response to a previous intervention, it would probably have been more useful if the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) had been present during Second Reading—his contribution might have been more apposite.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I believe that the Minister is being quite helpful. I am interested in the procedures of this House, as he knows. Will he confirm that if the Programming Sub-Committee would like to have more sittings within the timetable—that is, by the time the Bill leaves Committee—the Government would be happy to agree to that to allow the Opposition parties to ensure that all their it concerns were dealt with properly in Committee?
    Mr. Stringer: That is clearly a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee and its Chairman, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

    125
    The Government will not stipulate the amount of time to be spent on, say, the first four clauses; that will be for Opposition Members to decide. I hope chat the House will recognise that it is not the Government who win from the programme motion. The Opposition gain from being able to set out how they want the debate to be held, and the whole House wins from added certainty about the timetabling of Bills.
    I ask the House to support the programme motion.
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I am astonished by the Minister's assertions. In introducing his programme motion, he seemed to combine arrogance with regard to the Bill's proper scrutiny by the House with incompetence.
    The Minister of State in the other place also seemed to suggest when the Bill arrived there that it had been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny and examination by deregulation committees. Yet in the course of its examination in the House of Lords, amendments were made to the Bill concerning parliamentary control of subordinate provisions orders, the imposition of burdens and the extent to which they needed to be removed or reduced, and the extent to which cost savings were illustrated in clause 6. A Bill that the Minister described as "perfectly formed" was certainly not so when it was introduced in another place, and it was the subject of amendments there.
    The Minister is saying that the Second Reading debate has had no impact on him. It is possible that he paid no attention to it, but in my hearing of it, a number of matters were raised—and not only by Conservative Members, which is interesting. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), who is no longer with us, and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said that they believed that the Bill did not go far enough on simplification and comprehensibility. Yet the Minister seems to be discounting not only points made by Conservative Members but those made by his colleagues.
    Mr. Stringer: When my noble Friend Lord Falconer introduced the Bill in the other place, he made it clear that the Government were open to particular amendments because of the recommendations of. the Deregulation Committee in this House, as hon. Members will see if they read Lords Hansard. I said—I want the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and others to be clear about this point—that the Government have no intention of tabling amendments in Committee. We will, of course, listen as carefully as possible to the arguments put forward by Conservative and, indeed, Labour Members.
    Mr. Lansley: The mention of the Minister of State in the Lords reminds us that incompetence and arrogance seem to go together in this Government. The Minister says that the Government do not intend to table amendments, but that does not absolve them of the necessity to have regard to the extent of amendments that might be tabled in Committee by Conservative Members, Liberal Democrats or even, heaven I offend, Labour Back Benchers. Yet the Government seem to have assumed that the Committee stage can be completed by 29 March, regardless of the number of amendments that are tabled.
    That is all of a piece with the way in which this Government behave. They are not interested in what others have to say; they are interested only in passing their
    126
    Bill according to their timetable. As the Second Reading debate demonstrated, they want their fig leaf of deregulation to cover the nakedness of their regulatory activity over the past four years.
    Mr. Stringer: It says here.
    Mr. Lansley: It does not say that here—I just made it up.
    A number of issues were addressed in the Second Reading debate and, more importantly, as the Minister will have observed, Conservative Members moved a reasoned amendment objecting to the principle of the Bill, which is objectionable in that it is capable of being a regulatory Bill—one which imposes burdens rather than using an exceptional. important power for a specific deregulatory purpose.
    The Minister was right to say that there is now a degree of acceptance, which extends to his party as well as to ours, about the use of what the Minister described as a super-affirmative procedure for secondary legislation to amend regulatory effects of primary legislation, but Conservative Members have not reconciled themselves to that in circumstances where it could be used to impose new burdens and to free the public sector to impose additional costs or to reduce its own burdens at the expense of the private sector. We are not reconciled to the idea that that exceptional procedure should be used other than for the specific purpose of removing the burden that the state imposes on the private citizen, yet the Government plan to pursue that point.
    Having lost the vote on our reasoned amendment, we find that the Minister has no regard to the additional safeguards that we might want to propose in Committee. It is incumbent on me to give the Minister an indication of some of the measures that we would like to suggest in amendments.
    Mr. Hogg rose—
    Mr. Lansley: Before I launch into the precise detail. I happily give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes the point that the Bill may be used to impose further regulations. He might add that the order-making procedure that the House is being asked to approve will not give us the opportunity to amend any further obligations that we may be asked to agree to. The order-making procedure is all or nothing.
    Mr. Lansley: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) opposed the measure from the Labour Benches principally on the ground that it contained a power to amend or even repeal Acts of Parliament. Substantial but unamendable changes could be made to primary legislation even though, in certain circumstances, formal scrutiny by the House would be limited to a 90-minute debate under the affirmative resolution procedure.
    Such changes were subject to prior scrutiny by the deregulation Committees, but scrutiny by the Members of the House was limited. I was not a Member at that time, but my right hon. and learned Friend will recall that the

    127
    Conservative Government thought that the procedure was justified because of the wider benefit to be derived for the business community and private citizens from the ability to reduce the overall burden of regulation. That power is to be used by the Government to take wholly new directions, although there are no safeguards in place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) referred to the tests that have to be applied—those of proportionality, fair balance and the desirability of such measures—and the language used leads one to the question whether a Minister is of the opinion that a particular regulatory reform order is desirable. There is no constraint in the Bill that provides that a Minister can proceed only on the basis that there is a net deregulatory—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The debate is about the time allocated for proceedings in Committee. The hon. Gentleman should restrict his comments to that.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tempted me.
    I emphasise that the amendments that we want to table in Committee and the question of safeguards both warrant a significant allocation of time and neither should be prejudiced by the Government's decision that consideration must be completed by 29 March. Let me give an example of what we want to scrutinise.
    On the test of proportionality, when burdens are to be imposed through the making or re-enactment of provisions, there should be a proportional benefit. However, as Baroness Buscombe said in the other place, the Bill does not deal with whether such additional burdens are necessary, and the necessity of such measures must be considered. We must also be sure that their effect will be genuinely deregulatory.
    One of the Bill's serious and principal deficiencies relates to Ministers in the other place. At the end of the debate on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office was prepared to use the weasel words that every regulatory reform order would be deregulatory in effect. However, he would not answer the question whether they would have a net deregulatory effect in practice.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap. He must direct his remarks to the time that will be spent in Committee.
    Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall indeed address myself to the time. There are a number of amendments relating directly to the point that I was making; I shall certainly want to test it during the Standing Committee's discussions.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend respond to the same question that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office? If in the light of amendments tabled in Standing Committee, it is clear that the number of sittings agreed to in the sittings motion is inadequate, does my hon. Friend believe that the Government will permit
    128
    additional sittings to ensure that all the amendments considered important by Opposition parties are properly debated?
    Mr. Lansley: I entirely take my hon. Friend's point—I hope. That should be the case—that is what the Government should do. However, the experience of the Opposition is that, on some occasions, the Government—far from making available additional sittings within the time constraints of the programme motion—have actually curtailed the number of sittings previously promised. Having listened to a debate on that subject last week, I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends realise that the Government are not to be trusted on such matters.
    Although the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office says that the Bill is small, the significance of the provisions that we have to discuss is not small. The need for simplification of legislation in general was raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. Such simplification is not present in the Bill, although language on modernisation might intrude if members of the De regulation Committee had their way. The consideration of simplification is one of the safeguards that must be built into the legislation. That will need further time fur discussion.
    We also need to ensure that there are safeguards on powers introduced both as regards the extension of criminal sanctions and as regards the extent to which Ministers are able to incur expenditure under the legislation. Both are curious matters for contemplation under a deregulatory measure. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to table amendments to ensure that there ate safeguards on changes to primary legislation that would have the effect of changing criminal sanctions; such measures should be appropriately circumscribed.
    The Committee may want to consider not only amendments to existing clauses—the length of the Bill in terms of the number of clauses is not an absolute constraint—but one or more new clauses. For example, the review of regulatory reform orders and of the legislation itself has been the subject of some undertakings from Ministers, but it has not been built into the Bill. The Committee should certainly examine those matters in the form of new clauses. My colleagues—and, I suspect, business organisations—attach considerable importance to setting up some form of review of regulatory reform orders after a period, so as to determine whether they give rise to the cost and savings benefits and disbenefits that will be anticipated in the documents to be laid before the House under clause 6.
    The whole scope of consultation, as well as internal parliamentary scrutiny, continues to give us serious cause for concern. The active involvement of external organisations in securing scrutiny of the legislation and of regulatory reform orders before they are even considered by the Select Committees is integral to the success of the whole deregulation process. In that respect, it is significant that clause 6 gives quite detailed provisions as to what should be presented in the document laid before Parliament, although there is more to say on regulatory impact assessments. Clause 5 provides for consultation

    129
    external to Parliament. Business organisations should have much of the same information; we hope to table amendments to that effect.
    Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he might not have had a problem with time if Conservative members of the Deregulation Committee had taken part in the consideration of the draft Bill, rather than boycotting the proceedings?
    Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman simply repeats remarks that he made on Second Reading. The simple fact of the matter is that Minister did not take on board some of the Deregulation Committee's proposals. For example, the hon. Gentleman could have told us about the reasons why the Government did not choose to include a provision on modernisation and simplification, which the Deregulation Committee wanted to come within the scope of regulatory reform orders. So there are many issues to be discussed.
    Although the Bill is short, it is highly significant. It not only has wide constitutional implications but could seriously affect a lot of legislation, so it is important that we get it right. The House has given it a Second Reading and, in due course, it should become an Act that is as near as possible to the objective, contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, of providing an exceptional power to deliver a specific deregulatory purpose. We intend to use all the time available in Committee to table amendments to improve the Bill, in so far as the Government will give us the opportunity to do so.
    10.41 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The very fact that the Conservative spokesman has run into difficulty in trying to avoid rehearsing the arguments on the substance of the Bill shows how ridiculous programme motion debates have become. That, I fear, is largely because of the way in which the Government have handled the business of the House, rather than being the responsibility of the Opposition parties which, obviously, can have only a limited impact on such motions.
    I shall stick to the subject of the programme motion itself. Clearly, the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced it was itself rather peculiar. First he said—I cannot precisely repeat his words, but I think that I paraphrase accurately—that he could not envisage circumstances in which the Government would introduce amendments. However, he slipped in the phrase, "at present". I am sure that we shall see that qualification when we read Hansard tomorrow morning. When he was challenged on that point, he made another statement, which was slightly different.
    What is so intrinsically absurd about programme motions like this is that, before the Committee of Selection has even appointed the Standing Committee's members or its Chairman and before the Programming Sub-Committee has had an opportunity to analyse the issues raised on Second Reading—let alone to look at any representation made from outside the House since the Bill's consideration in the other place—the Government see fit to put an end date on the Bill's consideration in Committee. That is patently, intrinsically absurd, and it is unnecessary.
    130
    This week, I hope to put some proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to discover whether we cannot break the ludicrous logjam of programme motions. I appeal to those on both Front Benches carefully to consider ways in which programme motions can proceed consensually, to give them the real impact that they were intended to have when they were first proposed by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure in the previous Parliament, and by the Modernisation Committee in this Parliament.
    I very much hope that Back Benchers on both sides of the House, who must recognise what a silly farce programme motions have become, will exert pressure on those on their Front Benches to discover whether we cannot make progress. Some Members think that we can make no progress on anything until we are the other side of the general election, but I remind them it is possible that, instead of Dissolution taking place in 13 days' time, it could still be 13 months away.
    We simply cannot go on for another 13 months with the current absurdities that have been put before us tonight, and night after night, with programme motions. I hope therefore that in considering the proposals, all members of the Modernisation Committee, on both sides of the House, will be prepared to discover whether we cannot find some way through.
    There is an additional reason: we cannot wait until the other side of polling day to establish what Sessional Orders may be appropriate to the new Parliament. So it is important to try to achieve a consensus on both sides of the House on how to improve the situation. Certainly, the present arrangement brings no credit on the House. These 45-minute debates have become increasingly sterile—a genuine dialogue of the deaf—and they have not prepared the House for better management of its business.
    Effective scrutiny depends on the Opposition parties having an opportunity to say how the detailed issues should be addressed and how much time should be given to the particular parts of a Bill. I accept that the Government have a right to seek to get their business out of Committee by an end date. However, it is totally unnecessary to table the type of motion that is before the House tonight. I very much hope that, in the next few days, we might seek to make progress so that at least in the new Parliament—be that in a month or two or 14 months or so—we can bring credit to the way in which the House does its business.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise once again to oppose the principle of a programme motion. Those on the Government Front Bench need to understand that there is no consent to the process on which they are embarking. They also need to understand that the lack of consent is perfectly genuine. I have been in this place a long time, so I recognise that Members of Parliament often express views that are, on the whole, superficial. One is entitled to ask, "Do they really mean it?" However, we really do mean it when we say that the current process of timetabling is deeply unacceptable to us.
    The process is unacceptable for a variety of reasons that I shall outline shortly. However, the consequence is critically important. If a sizeable portion of the House does not accept

    131
    a process, that process has no legitimacy. The House can proceed only if we have what might be broadly defined as genuine acquiesence. There is no genuine acquiesence in the process of timetabling; and the consequences of such a lack of acquiesence are actions, such as those effected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that demonstrate the House's collective disquiet at the process on which the Government are embarking.
    This is an important Bill. I shall not discuss it because you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will give the Government a wide discretionary power to change or to disapply primary legislation. That is a constitutional innovation. I, for one, find it passing strange that Third Reading should permit but one hour of debate on a measure of such constitutional importance.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made the point that we need to consider whether it might be possible to reach a consensus on timetabling. The answer is that we might be able to do so, but that has to be on the basis that there is genuine time for discussion. I have been in this place a long time and, like others, I know that from time to time Members abuse the processes of the House. When there is a genuine feeling that the House's processes are being abused, the Government will find that they have tacit support for intervention by way of timetabling or closure even though hon. Members may go through the motions of opposition. Members, however, will not accept timetabling in advance before there is abuse. Government Members must accept that we will never, ever accept artificial timetabling, although we will accept timetabling when there is abuse. However, it will always be a matter of judgment as to when there is or is not abuse.
    The Government must also understand that the Committee and Report stages are important. It is all very well to say that this is a small Bill, so the House should just accept it. However, the process of scrutinising legislation contains certain distinct elements. First, we have to consider whether the principle is right. I do not think that it is in this case, because of the constitutional implication—but let us assume that I am wrong. We then have to consider the language in which the legislation is couched. One of our functions as Members of Parliament is to try to ensure that we do not pass legislation that is inherently nonsensical or which gives rise to unforeseen problems. We can only understand that by scrutinising it extensively in Committee.
    There is an additional matter to consider which arises from such a debate. The Bill is supposed to enable us to remove, by order, the burdens of regulation. Hon. Members will want to identify cases in Committee or on Report of regulations that are biting on their constituents. They will do that by tabling amendments that draw specific attention to a class of abuse or regulation.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not merely the number of clauses that counts, but their scope, reach and potential cost? Notwithstanding what the Parliamentary Secretary says about not intending to table amendments, is it not the case that many other people may want to? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the subordinate provisions
    132
    order in clause 4—on which the Parliamentary Secretary was notably silent—is highly controversial and should be submitted to extensive debate?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend identifies three major considerations, the second of which is the most important. He draws attention to the fact that the Government have no intention of tabling amendments—as if that were a conclusive argument. I bet they will table amendments. I have been in the House and in government for much longer than the Parliamentary Secretary and the chance of his not tabling amendments is very small. However, I do not care what he does. What concerns me is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) may want to table an amendment.
    Mr. John Gummer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has been trying, from a sedentary position, to get him to stop speaking even though she has spoken a great deal herself and we have only 45 minutes in which to discuss the motion?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady has prattled throughout her time in the House. I heard background noises, but fortunately I am rather deaf. I tried to see who was making the funny little noise and I am glad to learn that it was the Minister, because that means I do not have to worry about what was going on.
    My right hon. Friend is right. We are not concerned primarily with whether the Government want to table amendments. What interests us is whether Back Benchers or Front Benchers of different parties want to do that and articulate their constituents' concerns. The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude is: if the Government do not want to table amendments, does it matter that others might want to? Yes, it does. That is why there is no consent in the House.
    I have said before that there is an implied bargain in a democracy between Parliament—the legislature—and the electorate. If the electorate are to accept policy and legislation that imposes burdens on them, they do so on the basis that their representatives in Parliament have been given an opportunity, which they have taken up, to scrutinise legislation. If the Government deprive Parliament of that opportunity, they will destroy the bargain and undermine the basis on which the country accepts the burdens that they impose.
    Mr. Leigh: On the electorate, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that if we continue to muzzle Parliament, the public will become less interested in it and know less about it? It was instructive tonight that when a contestant on the popular programme "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" was asked to name the Speaker of the House of Commons, neither he nor the audience had any idea. They were given four choices—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond to that intervention.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is somewhat embarrassing to the Chair, but he is right: if the House is deprived of an opportunity either to scrutinise

    133
    legislation or to articulate the concerns of its constituency, no one should be surprised if that constituency—the electorate—does not give a damn about us.
    That is what is happening. The Government are, by deliberate policy, muzzling the House. That is a scandal. Let me tell the Minister for the Cabinet Office that I shall be here long after she has gone, and I shall make it my business consistently and persistently to oppose timetable motions, which I believe are a denial of democracy.
    10.56 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not, in principle, against programming. I want it to work. I share the view expressed tonight by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler): the House was right to seek to use its time better. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I do not believe that people abuse the House. I think that they use the current procedures of the House as they think fit, which is wholly legitimate.
    To the Minister I put the question that I raised in an intervention: will he give an assurance that if the Opposition parties believe that, within the programme motion, more sittings of the Standing Committee are necessary, in no circumstances will the Government use their majority on the Committee to deny it the opportunity to have additional sittings? I hope that the Leader of the House and the Government accept the unique position of the Chairman of a Standing Committee who seeks to represent the interests of all members of that Committee, including members of the governing party whose views put them in a minority in that party, so as to ensure that all aspects of the Bill are properly considered by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham says, to do otherwise is to deny the true scrutiny role of the House of Commons.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 43.

    Division No. 159]

    [10.57 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Allen, Graham

    Browne, Desmond

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Burden, Richard

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Burgon, Colin

    Ashton, Joe

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Austin, John

    Campbell Alan (Tynemouth)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Barnes, Harry

    Cann, Jamie

    Barron, Kevin

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bayley, Hugh

    Caton, Martin

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cawsey,Ian

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clapham, Michael

    Benton, Joe

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinourgh Pentlands)

    Best, Harold

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Cohen, Harry

    Borrow, David

    Coleman, Iain

    134

    Colman, Tony

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Connarty, Michael

    Kemp, Fraser

    Corston, Jean

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Cousins, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S

    Cox, Tom

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Crausby, David

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Davidson, Ian

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lammy, David

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

    Laxton, Bob

    Lepper, David

    Dawson, Hilton

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Dowd, Jim

    Lock, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Love, Andrew

    Edwards, Huw

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Efford, Clive

    McCabe, Steve

    Ennis, Jeff

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Fisher, Mark

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McDonnell, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    McFall, John

    Flint, Caroline

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Flynn, Paul

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Follett, Barbara

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Foulkes, George

    McNulty, Tony

    Galloway, George

    MacShane, Denis

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWalter, Tony

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McWilliam, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mallaber, Judy

    Goggins, Paul

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Grogan, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hanson, David

    Meale, Alan

    Healey, John

    Merron, Gillian

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hendrick, Mark

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Hepbum, Stephen

    Miller, Andrew

    Heppell, John

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hill, Keith

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Hope, Phil

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

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Mountford, Kali

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mudie, George

    Hurst, Alan

    Mullin, Chris

    Hutton. John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Illsley, Eric

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Pond, Chris

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pope, Greg

    135

    Pound, Stephen

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stringer, Graham

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Purchase, Ken

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rammell, Bill

    Rapson, Syd

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Todd, Mark

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Touhig, Don

    Rooney, Terry

    Trickett, Jon

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Truswell, Paul

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Salter, Martin

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Tynan, Bill

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Vaz, Keith

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sheerman, Barry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Watts, David

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    White, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winnick, David

    Snape, Peter

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Soley, Clive

    Woodward, Shaun

    Spellar, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Stevenson, George

    Mr. Mike Hall.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Evans, Nigel

    Amess, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Flight, Howard

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Baldry, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gale, Roger

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Garnier, Edward

    Bercow, John

    Gibb, Nick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Green, Damian

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, John

    Brady, Graham

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hammond, Philip

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hancock, Mike

    Bums, Simon

    Harvey, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash, William

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Horam, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cran, James

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Keetch, Paul

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Day, Stephen

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan, Alan

    Lansley, Andrew

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Leigh, Edward

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Letwin, Oliver

    136

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lidington, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shepherd, Richard

    Livsey, Richard

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

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

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Loughton, Tim

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Streeter, Gary

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Madel, Sir David

    Swayne, Desmond

    Malins, Humfrey

    Syms, Robert

    Maples, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Townend, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Norman, Archie

    Trend, Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tyler, Paul

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Paice, James

    Walter, Robert

    Paterson, Owen

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Prior, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Randall, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Rendel, David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. James Gray and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]:

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 29th March.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion

    137
    to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

    REGULATORY REFORM BELL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
    (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of orders under the Act, and
    (b) any increase attributable to orders under the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided. — [Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    11.10 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I beg to move,
    That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27th November 2000 relating to the Presidency Report to the Nice European Council on the Common European Security and Defence Policy (document 14056/3/00) and the three unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the FCO on 22nd and 23rd January relating to the establishment of permanent CESDP bodies; welcomes the Government's approach to a Common European Security and Defence Policy; and supports the Government's intention to pursue this initiative in the EU and in close co-operation with NATO.
    The motion stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's position on this important issue. I shall explain why the agreements reached at the Nice European Council— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members must not— [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members cannot wave papers and bob up and down in their seats while the Minister is addressing the House.
    Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that I have such a large following that Opposition Members have turned out for this debate.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister introduced the motion by saying that it stood in his name and those of his hon. Friends, but none of his hon. Friends appear on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Vaz: I shall explain why the agreements reached at the Nice European Council and the subsequent decisions of the January General Affairs Council represent a good outcome for Britain, Europe and NATO.
    The House will recall that the European Union's security and defence policy results from an initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1998. The goals of that initiative have not changed and are fully reflected in the agreements reached at Nice. We want to create a Europe where nations invest in better military capabilities. We want to strengthen Europe's contribution to NATO and to enable Europeans to act where NATO as a whole is not involved.
    Nice represented a major step towards securing those goals. The Council agreed on permanent structures for EU political and military bodies, and on inclusive arrangements to involve non-member states in European security and defence policy. It proposed comprehensive consultation and co-operation agreements between the EU and NATO.
    The results of Nice have been widely welcomed. The new United States Administration support the emphasis on capabilities and the relationship with NATO. On 23 February at Camp David, President Bush said:
    "The United States welcomes the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy, intended to make Europe a stronger and more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community."

    139
    Although the ESDP has been welcomed by the United States, its domestic reception here has, at times, been mixed. I fear that a great deal of that is down to misunderstandings created by the Conservative party, so I welcome this opportunity to put the record straight.
    The Nice report spells out what the ESDP is and, just as importantly in the light of some British reactions, what it is not. The second paragraph of the report could not be clearer. It states that EU nations will act
    "where NATO as a whole is not engaged".
    EU nations will carry out the Petersberg tasks,
    "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making".
    In other words, the EU will not be involved in war-fighting or collective defence; those remain with NATO alone.
    Hon. Members might like to recall that the Petersberg tasks were agreed by the previous Government as the scope of activity for the Western European Union, so it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise the European Union for being ready to take on the same roles. Moreover, it is worth recalling that the Maastricht treaty signed up EU member states not only to the prospect of a common EU defence policy, but to "a common defence". It is worth reminding the House that one of the Members who signed the Maastricht treaty was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is now shadow Foreign Secretary. Those who sound completely false alarm bells about the threat to NATO were happy to sign up to the prospect of the EU replacing NATO.
    The Government have changed the perspective by taking the lead in European defence rather than taking fright. We have shaped the debate and designed the policy in a way that ensures that NATO's pre-eminent role remains unchanged. To make that clear, the report states:
    "NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members and will continue to play an important role in crisis management".
    We have only to look to Bosnia and Kosovo for confirmation of the latter point.
    The report also makes it clear that there is no such thing as a European army. It states:
    "This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions.
    Thus the Nice treaty, agreed under the Government, establishes European defence as NATO-friendly and intergovernmental. The House will agree that that is a significant improvement on the open door to a common EU defence that was accepted at Maastricht by the self-proclaimed guardians of NATO and UK sovereignty.
    I have clarified what the ESDP is not; I shall now explain what it is
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Vaz: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, as well as being shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has taken over the role of shadow Foreign Secretary from the right hon. Member for
    140
    Horsham. The hon. Gentleman went to Washington to pour poison into the ears of the Administration. That caused our difficulties.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister claims much credit for moves away from Maastricht and other treaties. Why, in 1997, did the Prime Minister describe the proposals to which the Minister signed up at St. Malo and Nice as "ill-judged transplant" operations, which he voted out?
    Mr. Vaz: Let us begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Horsham, who signed the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and to Sir Malcolm Rifkind. who agreed the Petersberg tasks the next year. That is where European defence originated. The continuation of that policy at St. Malo began under the previous Government.
    Mr. Duncan Smith indicated dissent.
    Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take credit for it, but he must. He must also give due credit to the right hon. Member for Horsham.
    First and foremost, European defence is about more effective European armed forces. It is about enhancing Europe's contribution to NATO, strengthening our ability to support United Nations or Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe operations, and making it possible for EU nations to respond to crises.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Vaz: I give way to another member of the previous Government, who began the process of European defence.
    Mr. Howard: As the Minister is unable to call upon his solicitor's services this evening, will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked?
    Mr. Vaz: Why should I need a solicitor when an eminent barrister such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is present? He is probably even more expensive than any solicitor that I could have.
    The first annexe to the Nice report includes the conclusions of the capabilities commitment conference of 20 to 21 November 2000. At that conference, which was a UK-French initiative, EU nations set out the contributions that they proposed to offer the EU's headline goal.
    The headline goal of the European defence initiative is a step change in Europe's military performance. By 2003, EU nations operating; together should be able to deploy up to 60,000 troops it 60 days, and maintain a deployment of that size for at least a year. The capabilities conference showed that EU nations had enough troops to meet that target. The total contributions offered were more than 100,000. The quantity target was met. However, the conference agreed that further efforts were needed to improve the quality if the European performance in the availability. deployability, sustainability and use of those forces; in the ability to transport troops rapidly to the field of operations; and in better missiles, precision weapons and logistic support.

    141
    Britain welcomed that honest appraisal of the shortfalls and the commitment to filling those gaps. These high-readiness crisis management troops are precisely what NATO needs in the Balkans. This is, therefore, a practical example of how improving the performance of European nations also strengthens NATO.
    Mr. John Maples: The capabilities conference also called for the availability of 400 combat aircraft and 100 naval vessels. Why would the European Union rapid reaction force need all those troops, aircraft and ships just to perform Petersberg tasks?
    Mr. Vaz: Because it is important to show that there is the capability to achieve that. The hon. Gentleman should know that because he has a deeper knowledge of the subject than the right hon. Member for Horsham, and has thought carefully about it. Certainly, when I appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he probed me on that point. It is important that those capabilities exist.
    The capabilities conference was not just about EU nations. We deliberately made the headline goal a target that applied only to EU nations to ensure that the pressure was kept up to deliver real improvements without relying on others. However, the ESDP should involve all European nations, so the non-EU European members of NATO and other accession candidates offered contributions that would be available for EU-led operations.
    Nice also proposed a mechanism to ensure that EU nations' progress towards the headline goal was kept under review. That will involve close co-ordination between the EU and NATO, to ensure that commitments made in NATO defence planning and the ESDP are fully compatible.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is profoundly shocking that the Opposition appear willing to allow our ground troops to be exposed to risk without the support of the naval and air forces that they might need? Does he accept that 60,000 troops constitute one reinforced division, and that, on their own, they could be vulnerable?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, nothing that the Opposition do these days shocks me.
    The ESDP will work only as part of a transparent and effective relationship between the EU and NATO. A lot of nonsense has been talked about the EU establishing itself as a rival to NATO, and that nonsense comes from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who goes like a weasel to Washington to continue to poison the Administration there. That is emphatically not the case. The EU and NATO are not two anonymous, institutional monoliths. Eleven European countries are members of both. Both take defence decisions by consensus.
    I saw that consensus today when I attended the General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels. The Secretary-General of NATO and the Foreign Minister of Macedonia met the Foreign Ministers of the EU countries to discuss the situation in Macedonia. This is not a question of the EU and NATO acting separately. The way to deal with
    142
    European defence is for those organisations and institutions to work together. This is the only way that it can be achieved.
    Mr. John Gummer rose—
    Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
    Mr. Vaz: I give way to one of the pro-Europeans on the other side of the House: the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
    Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House further on this matter? He has made a number of comments but has not been able to answer the question that was in my mind and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The Minister prays in aid the Maastricht treaty—which I voted for—yet his leader voted against it and made it clear that the very things that the Minister now says are good about it were not good. What has changed in the meantime?
    Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening to what I have been saying. If he had been listening, he would know that the important part of the European defence framework that was established at Maastricht enabled us to continue this defence policy.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Maastricht treaty, and I know that it was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham; but other Conservative Members, such as the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), would not have signed the treaty, and do not support it. At least their position remains one of integrity, and not one to be changed whenever certain situations arise.
    Mr. William Cash: The Minister made some carping remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and his visit to Washington. Has the Minister read the House of Commons research department's note regarding the question of what President Bush has understood from the Prime Minister? It states:
    "Mr. Bush's seemingly relaxed view of ESDP may be somewhat misplaced. His reference to assurances from the Prime Minister that NATO and ESDP would have a joint command, and that the planning would take place within NATO, would appear to overstate the level of EU-NATO co-operation as laid down in the Presidency report from Nice."
    Mr. Vaz: I would rather hear the words used by President Bush himself than the comments contained in the document from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted. [Interruption.] What Opposition Members cannot stomach is the fact that the Prime Minister could go to Camp David and secure agreement with President Bush on this matter. That is what they cannot stomach, but that is exactly what happened. Support for the European defence policy from President Bush was the most important thing that came out of Camp David, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will recall that France threw NATO out of Paris because it did not want command and control of its forces to be organised under

    143
    NATO. What does this agreement on European armed forces mean? Does it mean that France is returning its troops to the command and control of NATO, or does it mean that all our troops are being taken out of that command and control?
    Mr. Vaz: France is completely supportive of these proposals. It signed up to the Nice agreement, which followed a conference and a council convened by the French. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that Nice is in France: that is where it was all agreed.
    The ESDP will work only as part of a transparent and effective relationship between the European Union and NATO. The Nice presidency report includes a comprehensive set of proposals for EU-NATO relations, which are listed in annexe VII of the report and its appendix. The EU makes three proposals. It proposes that co-operation should cover all questions of common interest relating to security, defence and crisis management; that there should be joint ministerial, senior official and military committee meetings during each EU presidency; that EU representatives attend NATO meetings, and vice versa; and that all those contacts should be intensified in a crisis.
    The arrangements do not seem to have satisfied some Opposition Members, but they were welcomed by NATO Foreign Ministers when they met during the week after Nice. The EU welcomed NATO's positive reaction. In an exchange of letters, the EU presidency and NATO's Secretary-General noted that there was now agreement on the elements of the permanent NATO-EU relationship. Copies of the exchange were placed in the Vote Office in advance of tonight's debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone. a frequent visitor to the Vote Office, has already collected his copy.
    The other crucial aspect of NATO-EU relations is represented by arrangements for the EU to have access to the assets and expertise of the alliance. There is no intention to duplicate unnecessarily in the EU what exists already in NATO or in European nations. For any EU operation using NATO assets, the operational planning and command structures will come from NATO.
    Mr. John Redwood: In that case, can the Minister explain why the EU force—I think that it is an army—needs a military committee, a political committee to direct it, beefed-up strategic intelligence and extra transport? Is it not, in practice, a scheme for a comprehensive military force that does things that NATO does not want to do—not under NATO command and not in co-operation, but separate and deliberately so? Have not the Government lost to the French on that very issue?
    Mr. Vaz: I am really sorry that, after I have opened this debate and all the discussions that have taken place, the right hon. Gentleman simply does not understand what we have been talking about. As he heard me say right at the beginning, NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. As he also heard me say, of course any
    144
    operation of that type will have to draw on NATO assets and NATO command structures. That is precisely what I have just said.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Vaz: I shall give way in a moment. Let me make a little progress first.
    The EU military staff will not do operational level planning, nor will it provide command and control structures. It will be a small secretariat with officers on secondment from national Ministries of Defence. It will support the EU military committee and maintain close contact with NATO headquarters. There will be about 140 officers in the EU military staff. It is fanciful to think that that could rival or duplicate the work of the 2,000 or so officers at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, and nor would we want it to.
    For small EU-led operations, the alternative exists of planning done by national headquarters, such as the United Kingdom's permanent joint headquarters or the French equivalent. That might be appropriate, for example, for an evacuation of EU nationals or a straightforward humanitarian mission. Regardless, EU nations would decide on an operation only after consultation with NATO and once it was clear that NATO was not going to act. Does the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) understand that, or does he want me to repeat the sentence?
    Dr. Lewis: The Minister has rightly said that there will be no duplication of assets, which is absolutely true. If the EU rapid reaction force is operating, it will have to use assets previously allocated to NATO. Is it not correct that the EU rapid reaction force will be operating only on occasions when NATO does not wish to be involved? Therefore, is not the consequence that, when the EU rapid reaction force is operating on such occasions, it will be taking away forces from NATO, thus leaving NATO with fewer forces for those operations in which it does wish to be involved?
    Mr. Vaz: The hon Gentleman almost got it right. He was fine up to the last sentence, when he really lost it. Of course the force will draw on NATO assets, but it will do so because NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. There will not be any operations other than those in which NATO has said that it will not act. The hon. Gentleman was fine until the last sentence.
    EU nations will determine the objectives for an EU operation and will be responsible for its strategic control and political direction. Some hon. Members seem surprised that a NATO command structure used for an EU—led operation should come under the EU' s control for the duration of the operation. However, that would seem to me to be a statement of the obvious. If the United Kingdom mounts a national operation, it is the United Kingdom that will decide. if NATO operates, NATO nations together take the decisions. If the EU undertakes a military operation, who should decide its strategy and direction but the EU nations themselves?
    The Nice report sets out, at annexe VI, how the EU will ensure the closest possible involvement of non—member states in the ESDP. That applies from

    145
    consultations in the routine phase, to their rights and obligations in the EU—led operation. During every presidency, there will be meetings with the non—EU European members of NATO and, separately, with those countries plus the other candidates for accession to the EU. That consultation will be intensified as a crisis emerges. At that point—indeed at any point—non—member states can call for additional meetings with EU countries.
    In recognition of the importance of NATO's place in the ESDP, European members of NATO outside the EU will have the right to take part in any EU operation using NATO assets. Other non—member states can be invited to do so. When non—member states are making a significant contribution to an EU—led operation, they will take part in its day—to—day management on the same basis as participating member states. That is precisely the kind of dialogue that we had today in Brussels when the NATO Secretary—General and the Macedonian Foreign Minister met EU Ministers to discuss the serious situation in Macedonia.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman is guilty of playing games with words. The reality, as he knows very well, no matter how much sophistry he applies to it, is that the key phrases in annexe VII mean that what happens between the EU and NATO
    "must take place in full respect of the autonomy of EU decision—making"
    and that
    "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation"
    The Minister knows well that when those words were written, they did not intend, as the Prime Minister said to President Bush, that everything would be under the command of NATO, as he had promised.
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman just cannot bear the thought that the United States of America and ourselves—President Bush and Prime Minister Blair—were able to agree on European defence on 23 February, because he has spent so much of his time trying to undermine the relationship between the two counties, with his weasel words in Washington. That is a disgraceful way to treat such matters. I realise that he is preparing for the inevitable leadership election after the general election; I am sure that the telephone banks are already set up. None the less, I assure him that we are very comfortable with the words of President Bush and the Prime Minister at Camp David. That is what the hon. Gentleman cannot get over.
    At Nice, there was agreement on the roles and composition of the permanent political and military structures within the EU for crisis management. For the convenience of Conservative Members, I can tell them that those are set out in annexes III to V. The General Affairs Council on 22 January decided how they would be established.
    The Political and Security Committee has replaced the EU Political Committee. It is responsible for day—to—day management of all CFSP issues. It will be the main interlocutor of the North Atlantic Council. The PSC and NAC met for the first time on 5 February. As well as taking forward the ESDP, they are concentrating on the practical issues of NATO—EU co—operation in the Balkans.
    146
    The military committee brings together national Chiefs of Defence Staff or their representatives. It will be the interlocutor of the NATO military committee. Most nations, including the United Kingdom, appoint the same military representatives to NATO and the EU, to ensure a coherent approach.
    The discipline and coherence of the EU and NATO military committees will be a useful preparation for the new responsibilities of the current UK military representative, Sir Michael Willcocks; as hon. Members may be aware, he has just been appointed to succeed Black Rod.
    The military committee will be formally established once its first permanent chairman is appointed, later this spring. The military staff will also be formally established later this spring, following a decision by Javier Solana, the High Representative.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Vaz: I have given way several times in this debate, and I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman now. He can take part in the debate. I am well aware that only an hour and a half has been allocated for it, and I shall not therefore cover the provisions in the Nice report for taking forward the civilian aspects of crisis management and work on conflict prevention. Both of those are important, as the Balkans crises show, and the EU work on them under the Swedish presidency is proceeding well.
    Let me, in closing, re—state the fundamental points for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The ESDP is good news for Britain, Europe and NATO. That is why the Government developed it, why Europe supports it and why the United States and NATO have welcomed it in the statement made by President Bush and the Prime Minister on 23 February. This Government, the United States Government, our EU partners and NATO allies are engaged in making a success of the ESDP. Nice was an important step towards realising the goals of a NATO—friendly ESDP. It was a good result for NATO and a good result for Britain.
    11.40 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: It sets a new record for brazenness in this place for the Minister of State, in the circumstances in which he finds himself, to talk about integrity and hypocrisy. No wonder not a single member of the Cabinet had the face to come here tonight to support him, including his boss.
    This is a very important matter. We all congratulate the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for having brought it to the attention of the House. I hope that, at least for the rest of the evening, it will get the attention that it deserves.
    Let me start by saying clearly and unambiguously, so that there can be no doubt at all, that Conservative Members are completely in favour of enhancing the defence capability of the European members of the Atlantic alliance. We are completely in favour of enhancing the European pillar of that alliance, so long as that is done in such a way as to reinforce the alliance as a whole. That means taking with us all the members of the alliance in Europe, EU and non—EU, and, of course, Canada and the United States.

    147
    It is perfectly true that the previous Conservative Administration played a very positive and proud role in the 1994 Washington—I mean NATO—summit, which agreed on the concept of a European strategic defence identity within NATO and on deploying a joint taskforce. However, we did that in such a way as to reinforce NATO, to ensure that all the allies were behind the decision and to enhance the links between us and the United States.
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman seeks to claim credit for the Washington summit. Of course, the Washington summit took place in 1999, when this Government were in power.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has not been paying attention. I was talking about the decision at the 1994 NATO summit to create a European strategic defence identity within NATO. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not in the brief."j As it is not in the brief, perhaps he does not know about it.
    The hon. Gentleman has quoted at length the communiqué that resulted from the Camp David meeting between the United Kingdom and President Bush. I have the transcript before me. It raises a number of questions to which the House is entitled to straightforward answers—a good deal more straightforward than the hon. Gentleman is accustomed to giving in other contexts. He certainly will not have the opportunity, as he had with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, simply to say that he would not answer—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are here to discuss the motion before the House. I remind hon. Members that that is all we are here to debate.
    Mr. Davies: Let me quote what President Bush said after the meeting at Camp David. He said of the Prime Minister:
    "he also assured me that the European defense would no way undermine NATO. He also assured me that there would be a joint command, that planning would take place within NATO … And finally, I was very hopeful when we discussed the Prime Minister's vision that such a vision would encourage our NATO allies and friends to bolster their defense budgets".
    So the Prime Minister evidently gave three assurances to President Bush, and he was sitting next to him when President Bush used the words that I have just quoted. He gave an assurance on joint command, an assurance that planning would take place within NATO and an assurance about increases in the budget.
    So far as bolstering the defence budget is concerned, there has clearly been no response at all to the Camp David meeting. The Government allowed the defence budget to fall steadily in real terms during their first three years, and the present Budget provides for a 0.1 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending. The continentals mostly have defence budgets that are stable or falling, and our German allies are in the middle of a steady four—year reduction in nominal terms, which is even bigger in real terms.
    148
    I turn now to the key questions of the joint command. Again, I quote President Bush. He said that
    "there would be a joint command."
    How does that square with the text of the Nice treaty? How does it square with the explanatory memorandum that the Minister of State sent to the European Scrutiny Committee? Annexe 7 to the Nice treaty does not refer to joint commands. It clearly says that the European Council
    "will appoint the operation commander and, through the intermediary of the PSC"—
    that is the EU Political and Security Committee—
    "instruct him to activate the chain of command."
    The treaty goes on to say that
    "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation … In that framework the operation commander will report on the conduct of the operation to EU bodies only."
    How can that possibly describe a joint command? There is absolutely no reference to a joint command and no description of how it might even come about or what it would look like. It would indeed be a rather unusual animal.
    Among other things, the treaty says that there will be
    "full respect of the autonomy of EU decision—making",
    which also seems to be inconsistent with any idea of a joint command. I will give way to the Minister of State if he wants to explain that to the House. How does the assurance given to President Bush at Camp David—which he accepted in good faith, as is clear from the text of his statement to the press afterwards—square with the text that I have just read out? The hon. Gentleman's silence is eloquent.
    I turn now to planning. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that President Bush said that he had received assurances
    "that planning would take place within NATO".
    There is no reference to any other possibility in his statement or, presumably, in the understanding that he was given of the matter. Annexe 6 to the Nice treaty sets out two possibilities on planning which I shall deal with in turn. It says:
    "For operations requiring recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be carried out by the Alliance's planning bodies, and for an autonomous EU operation it will be carried out within one of the European strategic level headquarters."
    There is no reference to that whatsoever in the Camp David communiqué or the statements made to the press by the Prime Minister and the President after that meeting. Was that matter raised? Was that possibility discussed with the President? Did the Minister of State and his colleagues think that President Bush or his advisers somehow would not get round to reading annexe 6? Does the hon. Gentleman. in the course of his duties in the Foreign Office, regularly underestimate the intelligence of the foreigners with whom he is dealing?
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I want fully to understand the hon. Gentleman's position. Is he saying that President Bush and his advisers did not read the Nice treaty, were not properly briefed on it and were therefore duped and misled by the Prime Minister? Is not that a strange attitude for the Conservative party to strike against a Republican President?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is sadly all too right, which is why the matter is so serious. He should know

    149
    that for some generations this country's Prime Minister, from whichever political party he comes, has enjoyed a great deal of credibility in Washington. When the Prime Minister went to Camp David, there is no doubt at all that President Bush would not have taken account of the possibility that the Prime Minister would conduct their conversations on the basis of concealing material facts. It is hardly surprising that President Bush's advisers have been extremely concerned since the Camp David meeting that they may indeed have been misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has often drawn attention to that.
    Let us examine the discrepancy between the text of the treaty of Nice and what was said to President Bush. I shall take the two possibilities in the treaty in turn: one is that planning for an EU operation would lie with one of the European strategic level headquarters; the other is that the operational planning structure of the alliance would be involved if NATO assets were involved.
    Mr. Vaz rose—
    Mr. Davies: I shall give way. Perhaps the Minister will answer one of my questions.
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman should calm himself a little. He needs to know that he is insulting the intelligence of the Government of America, which is one of our strongest allies. He ought to know that, before the Nice Council, the draft of the treaty and the annexes were sent to the Americans, who read them very clearly. After the Nice Council, NATO Foreign Ministers—that includes the United States of America—welcomed the Nice conclusions. He is insulting the intelligence of the American Administration and he should apologise for doing so.
    Mr. Davies: It is quite apparent that the Prime Minister gave assurances to President Bush at Camp David because those assurances are in President Bush's statement, which I have already quoted. It is quite clear that the understanding given to President Bush is that which President Bush himself expressed. I have just quoted it.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: In a moment. I must tell the Minister something else. He said that the Conservative party had somehow succeeded in poisoning the mind of the American Administration, but he again underestimates the intelligence of the people he is dealing with. It would be quite impossible to poison the mind of the American Administration with disinformation, but it is possible to make it clear to them that the Government speak with forked tongue. Indeed, individuals members of the Government may speak with forked tongue.
    For all that the Minister does not want me to, I shall examine in detail the two possibilities for operational planning. Let us take the example of operational planning in one of the European strategic level headquarters. Here is a question that he may answer: what will happen to the permanent joint headquarters? Will it be turned into an EU headquarters for operational planning purposes? Will all the various sections of PJHQ such as J1, administration; J2, intelligence; J3, operations; and J5
    150
    planning, be full of staff officers from 14 other EU countries? Does he envisage PJHQ being turned into a combined EU headquarters? Does he seriously think that that is feasible? Does he seriously think that in those circumstances PJHQ could continue to carry out its task of managing our national operations in the Falklands and Cyprus, our deployments in Kosovo and Bosnia and major exercises? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; he realises that it is not a viable possibility. What exactly does he mean by the words
    "within one of the European strategic level headquarters"?
    Does he want me to give way to him? I will do so. Will he tell us what that phrase means? Should I count up to 10 to see whether he will respond?
    Mr. Vaz: I do not want to be rude to a fellow former ex—Caian, but I should be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman could count up to 10, bearing in mind that he has understood nothing that has been said this evening. He knows that the operation and planning of all these matters starts with NATO. As he knows—it is a pity that his speech does not reflect it—we are talking about a limited set of tasks: the Petersberg tasks. They were agreed at the Petersberg hotel by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hurd and they deal with those issues. That is what we are talking about. For all the substantial issues on European defence, we will have to draw on the assets and planning capabilities of NATO. That is why President Bush is so comfortable with the arrangements and supports them. That is why the hon. Gentleman cannot believe that the policy has the support of the Americans.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I ask him to elucidate, for the benefit of the House, an important phrase in the document:
    "within one of the European strategic level headquarters".
    I offer to give way to him; I force him—more or less—to stand up but he does not answer the question at all. He does not deal with my question; he simply comes out with a childish insult against me, and then a lot of irrelevant obfuscations in the best new Labour mode.
    The Minister makes my point. It is clearly established that the Government either do not know what the phrase means or that they are certainly not going to tell anyone else what it means. On such important matters of national security, it is extremely worrying that we should be dealing with our major ally—the United States—on that basis. If the Minister who is responsible—who signs the memorandum that we are discussing—does not know the answer to my question, how can he possibly deal with operational planning?
    Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and an Under—Secretary who is about to join the State Department made interesting statements? Those statements make it clear that the American Administration have studied the annexes and texts and are worried on exactly the grounds set out by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The American Administration are pleased that I, my hon.

    151
    Friends and others are going to the United States to tell them the truth about these matters because they are clearly not getting it from the Government.
    Mr. Davies: Anybody who was mildly worried before this evening would be absolutely terrified after the Minister's performance, because he does not even know—or will not say—what is meant by those words.
    Let us consider the other side of operational planning. That requires recourse to NATO operational assets because such assets would be used in the potential operation. The treaty makes it clear that the alliance planning bodies would be involved. That raises yet again an issue that the Government have systematically attempted to conceal from Parliament and from the public. The Minister did not even refer to it in his remarks. I will give way to him if he is willing to answer my question. Is it not true that the Turks have exercised a veto? Is it not true that the Turks have said that they do not accept the concept of guaranteed permanent access by the EU to NATO assets—either physical assets or operational planning assets? Is that not the case? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer the question. Again, I will give way to him.
    Mr. Vaz: That is not the case. Turkey, as a NATO ally and a friend of the United Kingdom, has raised concerns in the same way that everyone else involved in the issue wishes to have a dialogue to ensure that we get it right. That is the right approach. We can work with allies, such as Turkey and other countries, so that, in the end, we have a joined—up policy on European defence, working with the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and NATO. That is the way in which such things are done, and it is the right approach when dealing with such crisis management situations.
    Mr. Davies: All of us who are concerned about the diplomacy of our country must be shaking in our boots having heard that extraordinary response.
    The Minister says that Turkey has expressed concerns. That is another piece of disingenuous new Labour drivel. The Turks have actually said no. They have said that they will not agree to the proposal for permanent guaranteed access; they want to have a veto on each occasion. The treaty defines permanent guaranteed access as not requiring the approval of other NATO members on each occasion; nor, indeed, could the arrangements work if it were possible for a member of NATO, not a member of the EU, to exercise a veto on any occasion when NATO assets were required, or when the EU wanted access to NATO operational planning assets. So the second half of the arrangements for operational planning do not work either.
    The Minister did not know what the first half of the arrangements involved; he could not describe or explain them. He has now had to concede that the second half cannot work because the Turks have vetoed it, and the Turks are fully entitled to do so. It is extraordinary that
    152
    the major issue—that involving the Turks—has been systematically concealed from the public debate by the Government.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Davies: I shall give way once again, but then I shall make progress because I want other hon. Members to have a chance to speak.
    Mr. Wilkinson: It is not just the Turks who are deeply worried, but the American military as well. Is not that the most significant point of all? If the EU were to draw down American NATO assets—for example, if transport aircraft were required to fly lo a war zone under EU command—the United States Congress and the American people would not stand for it.
    Mr. Davies: Of course the Americans are worried about that. Naturally they are also worried about an EU force getting into trouble and requiring the Americans to come to its aid. The Americans are troubled about many things, but we should all be troubled not only by the issues that have been raised, but by the fact that the major dimension to the matter—the Turkish veto—has not been mentioned by the Government. I have had to drag it out of the Government this evening from the Dispatch Box.
    Once again, all those issues raise a dual problem: are the Government utterly incompetent, or are they duplicitous—or are they a rather nasty mixture of both? Let us consider the Turks. Did the Government know that the Turks would not agree to the arrangement? If they did not, did they speak to the Turks? How many times has the Minister gone to Ankara to discuss the matter with the Turks? He stopped answering questions from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the beginning of December, so he has had plenty of time since to go to Ankara if he had wanted to do so.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the limits of this debate.
    Mr. Davies: I was simply explaining the possible chronological constraints, which might have disbarred the Minister from performing his functions, that existed until recently.
    This matter simply will not go away. I have to tell the Minister that he and the rest of the Government have been steadily stonewalling. If they had come clean at the beginning, they might have had greater credibility in the House, in the alliance and in the United States. The fact is that many of us knew that a Labour Government could never really be trusted with defence. Many of us knew that their commitment to our alliances was so superficial, so recent and so opportunistic that it could not be trusted. A lot of us suspected that, when allied to the irresponsible, cynical, spin—doctoring culture, of which this particular Minister, with his reputation for shiftiness, is such a poor example—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that remark?
    Mr. Davies: I withdraw that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to say prevarication or

    153
    circumvention? Would they be acceptable parliamentary terms? They describe the nature of the leadership that we have had on this question. That is why the document does not stand up, why we have promises about operational planning that do not make sense and why we have promises about NATO command that are contradicted in the text of the document. That is why there is a crisis of confidence between the United States, the new Labour Government and the European allies
    If the Government continue in office for more than a few moments more, if they continue to believe that they can speak with two voices, say one thing in Europe and another in Washington and conceal from the House of Commons and the British public the truth of what is going on, they will have another think rapidly coming.
    12.6 am
    Mr. Paul Keetch: This has been a lively debate, but I shall keep my remarks brief so that other hon. Members might have a chance to speak. [Interruption.] I note, however, that Conservatives Members are eagerly leaving the Chamber, so it is clear that they have no further contribution to make to this important debate.
    Liberal Democrats believe that NATO is and will remain the bedrock of the United Kingdom's defence. It is Britain's ultimate insurance policy It ensured British security through the cold war and encouraged defence co—operation and planning after the fall of the Berlin wall.
    We have also understood and believed in the need for an improved European dimension. When Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told NATO members on 27 February:
    "The United States supports and welcomes the creation of a European Defence facility",
    the loudest sound in London was the gnashing of teeth at Conservative central office. Despite the myths that we have heard from Tory central office and the myths that we have heard tonight, the United States supports totally the approach that the Government have taken.
    Let us make no bones about it. The European Union's initiative allows for the autonomous political direction of operations by EU member states in the Council—not the Commission or the European Parliament—but for operational and strategic planning tot remain entrenched in NATO. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and I have said on previous occasions, we believe that there should be a NATO first refusal. In an article in The House Magazine on 8 January, I wrote:
    "Liberal Democrats have argued that NATO should always have the right of first refusal before any action is taken … It is understood that this will be normal operating practice but if that requirement were inserted in the arrangements, it could never be said that NATO had been sidelined or undermined."
    The draft presidency report on European security and defence policy makes it clear that the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe will be the "strategic coordinator" and that
    "operational planning will be carried out by the Alliance planning bodies".
    The NATO Washington summit supported that and all alliance partners agreed. They said:
    "We stand ready to define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged."
    154
    EU member states have made proposals and
    "hope for a favourable response from NATO",
    but there is some confusion about when and in what circumstances the EU will be asked to act.
    Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by telling us whether the Joint Committee of the Liberal Democrats and the Government is still going, or has it been betrayed by the Government's double—speak in the way that the Americans and the Europeans have been by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Keetch: That question has nothing to do with the debate, so I shall continue with what I was saying.
    There is some confusion. It is clear that only the most minor of missions will be able to be undertaken without NATO assets and that activities are to be confined to the Petersberg tasks of peacekeeping, humanitarian intervention and crisis management. In all cases, the decision to deploy will remain a matter for sovereign Parliaments. As with NATO, Government and Parliament will ultimately make the decisions, but the phraseology
    "where NATO as a whole is not engaged"
    is open to interpretation. The new Bush Administration made it clear that they support the CESDP.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Keetch: No. The right hon. Gentleman has spent too long on his feet tonight.
    The Bush Administration also made it clear that Britain's assurances on the primacy of NATO need to be made more formal. Condoleezza Rice, the United States national security adviser, said that the US has been assured that European Union nations
    "consider NATO to be the principal security instrument in Europe, that there is in fact a kind of NATO right of first refusal for missions."
    The Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out that the devil will be in the detail. We agree. Liberal Democrats have always believed that NATO should have the right of first refusal.
    It has been claimed that the European rapid reaction force constitutes an alternative to NATO. That is nonsense. Collective defence in which an attack on one is an attack on all remains the primary responsibility of NATO. The ERRF is a capability at the disposal of either NATO when it chooses to act or the EU when NATO chooses not to engage. In either case, NATO planning and command structures should remain in place without any wasteful duplication.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Keetch: No, I will not give way.
    Liberal Democrats have argued that NATO should have the right of first refusal. It is understood that that will be normal operating practice, but if that requirement is inserted in the arrangements, as we believe it should be, NATO could not be sidelined or undermined.
    The ERRF is not conceived as a standing European army. At no time will national security be suspended or national control over the use of armed forces be removed. It is, and will remain, up to the nation state to decide if and when our troops are deployed.

    155
    We believe that a successful ERRF will be a success for Britain in Europe. If the force is modelled on the image that Britain desires and its embryonic mechanisms complement NATO instead of competing with it, that will be impressive and it should receive our support. By maintaining a firm commitment to European defence, we can ensure that the ERRF lives up to expectations and that the European contribution to peace and security in the 21st century is enhanced.
    12.12 am
    Sir Raymond Whitney: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) rightly draws attention to the declining defence budgets of EU Governments in recent years, which is the first issue at the root of the problem. I am sorry to introduce a note of sombre common sense into what has been a fairly jolly party—indignant though we are about some of the issues that have emerged—but western Europe has not been pulling its weight in defence, which has created significant worries about the commitment of the United States to NATO.
    The second fundamental issue must not be swept away in a wave of anti—Europeanism. We must not have the Pavlovian reaction that everything that comes out of Europe is wrong or inimical to British interests. We must consider the issues calmly and carefully because nothing is more important than defence. The essential requirement that western Europe strengthens its defence capability must be common ground to every right hon. and hon. Member.
    As Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, said to our former hon. Friend and colleague Winston Churchill in an interview in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the outcome of the CESDP must add to NATO capabilities, not detract from them. That is another given in this complex and important issue.
    The third fundamental is that we must be clear about the French agenda, which, to put it at its mildest, might not be the same as the British agenda; moreover, it is not the same as that of most European members of NATO. We arrogate to ourselves the defence of NATO, as though no other member of NATO cares a tuppeny damn for it, but we know that that is wrong—try telling the Germans that only we, the British, know the value of NATO: my goodness, living under the threat of Russia, and formerly the Soviet Union, the Germans have every military, strategic and geographical reason to know the value of NATO.
    It is important that in constructing the ESDP nothing is done that threatens the viability and effectiveness of NATO and the American commitment to it. That is a difficult line to follow—a difficult case to make. However, the interview with Donald Rumsfeld, whom I had the privilege of knowing many years ago, shows that he and, I believe, the entire American Administration are fully aware of the dangers. They have not rejected the ESDP outright, because they know that good things might come from it, but they also know that care must be taken.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it strange that Front Benchers of his own party trumpet a possible Turkish veto of any such
    156
    arrangement when, despite Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, they cannot find sufficient evidence for an American veto of such operations?
    Sir Raymond Whitney: It is important to examine Mr. Rumsfeld's comments and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench are doing precisely that.
    When challenged by Mr. Winston Churchill—whose approach to these issues is, I imagine, not dissimilar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith); I might be doing one or both of them an injustice, but I doubt it—Mr. Rumsfeld said that President Bush's attitude was "relaxed" and that he was aware of the details agreed at Nice. I do not necessarily accept statements made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I certainly accept the statement of my friend Donald Rumsfeld.
    I believe that we must consider Mr. Rumsfeld's statements. We should carefully examine the details that worry him—they should worry us as well, but they might not present insoluble problems. Now is not the time to go into the chains of command and logistics—
    Mr. Cash: Why not?
    Sir Raymond Whitney: Because we do not have time. They are important mtatters, but they cannot be debated at half—past midnight with 10 minutes to go until the debate ends.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I take my hon. Friend's point about the hour being late and our not being able to go into much detail, but Donald Rumsfeld said
    "the devil is in the detail ".
    That is precisely what causes the Americans' concern—their fear that they have been deceived by the Government.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: My hon. Friend leaps a pace too far. I am the first to concede that the devil is in the detail, and when Rumsfeld says that, he is right, but to suggest that poor old Rumsfeld and poor old President Bush do not know what is going on is wholly unjustified.
    I hope that we can all calm down and pretend that, just occasionally, some good things can come out of Europe. If we can make the ESDP work, it will be better for everyone, including the United Kingdom.
    12.19 am
    Mr. Michael Howard: In his first intervention during the Minister's rather disgraceful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was entirely right to point to the Prime Minister's statement after the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997. The Prime Minister told the House:
    "getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997:Vol. 296, c. 317.]

    157
    In the many exchanges across the Floor of the House since the St. Malo agreement in 1998, there has never been even the semblance of an explanation from the Government of why they have performed such a complete volte—face and U—turn on the position that they rightly took up, with Conservative support, after the Amsterdam Council.
    We cling to what the Prime Minister said; he was right then. The Government, the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself now think that he was wrong, but they have never explained why. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) hit the nail on the head and got to the essence of the matter that we are discussing when he said that the Prime Minister spoke with a forked tongue when he went to Washington. The Prime Minister signed up to an agreement with our European partners at Nice, and then went to Washington and told the President of the United States that he had done something quite different. I do not think that the President was deceived for one moment; he knew exactly what was happening and set out for the world what he had been told by the Prime Minister It was then for the world to make a comparison. The President knew exactly what would happen; he knew that the world could compare what the Prime Minister told him with the language of the Nice treaty and its appendices—[Interruption.] What the Prime Minister told the President is therefore important; those assurances are significant.
    The President said of the Prime Minister:
    "He also assured me that there would be a joint command, that planning would take place within NATO, and that should all NATO not wish to go on a mission, that they would then serve as a catalyst for the defence forces moving on their own "
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to the deliciously ironic language of the note provided by the Library on the President's words. It states:
    "Mr Bush's seemingly relaxed view of ESDP may be somewhat misplaced. His reference to assurances from the Prime Minister that NATO and the ESDP would have a joint command and that planning would take place within NATO, would appear to overstate the level of EU—NATO co—operation as laid down in the Presidency Report from Nice."
    The note goes on to quote annexe VII to the presidency report. I do not know which document the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was waving around a moment ago; I hope that it was annexe VII. It states that
    "the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation, after consultation between the two organisations. In that framework the operation commander will report on the conduct of the operation to EU bodies only. NATO will be informed of developments in the situation by the appropriate bodies, in particular the PSC and the Chairman of the Military Committee."
    The Prime Minister was very fond of using the language—he used it when he came back from Nice. He said that these things will arise only when NATO chooses not to be involved. However, one will search the documents in vain for any reference to NATO's choice. It is not NATO that has the choice; under these arrangements, it is the European Union that has the choice.
    We heard from the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who said that it would be a jolly good idea if NATO had the choice, and that it should be written into the agreement that NATO had the choice. I do not know what happened in the negotiations at Nice, but it is fair to
    158
    assume that the Prime Minister tried extremely hard to get language written into the agreement to make sure that NATO had the choice. If he did, he failed. That is not what the French wanted, or what the other Europeans wanted. The Prime Minister lost out in that negotiation, so the treaty says absolutely nothing about NATO's choice. It is the European Union that has the choice.
    Mr. Hendrick: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that the EU may consult NATO effectively gives NATO the choice of being involved or not?
    Mr. Howard: I have a good deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot believe that he means what he has just said. That is a ludicrous proposition. The European Union has the choice. It then consults NATO, but the EU can refuse to agree with what NATO says. It can consult NATO and reject what NATO says.
    If, indeed, there is to be a joint command, and if the planning structure, as the Prime Minister assured the President, is to be within NATO, why on earth is a Political and Security Committee needed? Why is a military committee needed? Why is a military staff needed outside NATO, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out? Why are all those bodies needed outside NATO?
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney)—European defence co—operation needs to be strengthened. That is right, but it could and should be strengthened within NATO. All the command structures could be established within NATO, and none of the problems would arise.
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Did he notice in the Minister's statement and elsewhere in briefings by representatives of the Government that they have conceded the point and moved on? They accept that the words of the treaty and the annexe set out an entirely new and distinct EU structure, but they are now telling the American allies and others not to worry, because significant sums will not be spent on strategic and intelligence command and control, so that will never amount to much. That is a different and rather lame kind of defence.
    Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I entirely agree.
    The arrangements can be tested in another way. The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence reported on these matters. The Committee suggested that it was important that DSACEUR, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe,.should have the right—the right—to attend all meetings of the European military committee. Comparing that report with what appears in the arrangements set out in the treaty of Nice, the House of Commons Library points out that the level of involvement of DSACEUR with EU bodies appears to fall short of the recommendation made by the Defence Committee in its report.
    That is absolutely right. DSACEUR's level of involvement certainly does fall short. The treaty provides that DSACEUR may be invited to meetings of the military committee when that committee considers it appropriate, but he has no such right to attend, as was recommended by the Select Committee

    159
    The United States Defence Secretary was right when he said that the arrangements put at risk something special. It is something that the Government should have held special. By putting it at risk, they have rendered one of the greatest of all the many disservices that they have rendered to this country.
    12.29 am
    Mr. Terry Davis: The appropriate response to the first point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is that the proposals simply do not transfer the whole of the Western European Union into the European Union. The WEU has a range of responsibilities, including the Petersberg tasks, which are being transferred to the EU. However, it has other responsibilities—I refer especially to article 5 of the Brussels treaty—which are rightly not being transferred. I do not think that any party wants collective defence to be undertaken by the EU. Thus, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, on which he built the rest of his speech, is frankly bogus.
    I was delighted to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), who introduced a more sober tone into the Opposition's approach to the debate. He was absolutely correct to say that this country is not alone in defending NATO. There are other EU countries that also attach greater importance to NATO than to the EU. As I said, it is not collective defence that is being transferred to the EU, but the Petersberg tasks, which relate to humanitarian missions, of which there have been several; indeed, there have been far too many in the recent history of Europe. In future, that responsibility is to be undertaken by the EU.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If a Petersberg task is being undertaken, forces will be siphoned off from those previously allocated to NATO in order to discharge it. How can NATO discharge the tasks that remain within its remit if it has depleted forces? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting instead that European countries will spend more money and use larger defence budgets to add to the strength of their armed forces? If so, will he tell us which countries will do so?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I recognise the importance of his comments and accept that forces cannot be used twice in two separate theatres. To pretend otherwise would be ridiculous and deceitful, so I entirely accept his point. However, the new arrangements do not change that situation. NATO can have more than one crisis to deal with. [Interruption.] I should like to finish my point; the hon. Gentleman asked a fair question and I am trying to provide a direct answer. The arrangements do not change the reality. Previously, if two crises occurred at the same time, NATO would have had to choose which one to prioritise. If two crises occur at the same time under the new arrangements, NATO will still have to decide whether to give priority to a crisis that is not being dealt with by the EU or whether to allow some forces to continue to be used by the EU.
    Let me give the hon. Gentleman a case in point, as such circumstances are not unprecedented. Four years ago, the need arose for Operation Alba. The United Kingdom did
    160
    not participate in the operation, but several of our NATO allies and some non—NATO European countries did so. If a bigger crisis had arisen that required those forces, the Italians, French and others taking part would have given priority to NATO. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point in a moment. I have tried to answer his first question, as he did not receive a reply the first time he asked it.
    The hon. Gentle man's second question was about which countries would increase defence expenditure. That is another fair question, of which I am not afraid. Let me give him one good example. I have no doubt that Italy needs to increase its defence expenditure considerably. Currently, it does not define such expenditure in the same way as other NATO members. By NATO's assessment, it does not make a reasonable contribution to the collective defence of Europe and to NATO. There are other examples. but that is one of the most glaring. It does not help the debate to refuse to deal with such points.
    I should like now to continue with my main remarks, as I wish to put an important point to the Minister. Many of my hon. Friends and I support the Government's actions to enable the EU to make decisions to deal with the Petersberg tasks and to have the capacity and means of implementing the policy. However, many of us are worried about a defect that the documents do not mention. For several other defence organisations, not least NATO, we have had to create an assembly of parliamentarians to scrutinise common policies, assets, activities and purpose. Members of nations I Parliaments meet for that purpose, as they do in the Western European Union Assembly. A defect in the arrangements that we are considering is the lack of provision for scrutiny of common activities that are undertaken by the European Union on defence. I am talking not about accountability but about scrutiny.
    I regret that our Government have not succeeded in persuading our partners in the EU to implement some of the ideas that the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister have proposed for establishing an assembly, which will bring national parliamentarians together to scrutinise, exchange information and liaise. I appreciate that our Ministers cannot create such an assembly on their own, but I hope that they will continue to insist that a democratic organisation should have a democratic assembly that brings together the parliamentarians of all the countries involved. 1 hope that all hon. Members will support that.
    12.36 am
    Mr. William Cash: The European security and defence policy is a sort of satire, reminiscent of "Gulliver's Travels" and the tales of Baron von Munchhausen. It is a myth; a voyage in time and space, which is completely at variance with judgment, experience and reality. It is doomed to failure, and is yet another example of lions—in this case, the United States and the United Kingdom—being led by donkeys. As Wellington said of his allies in the Peninsular war:
    "I do not know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."
    As Churchill and the British discovered with the Maginot line, such arrangements are all spin and no delivery.
    The fault lies with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I have raised the point with the Prime Minister over Feira, and with the Foreign Secretary and the

    161
    Secretary of State for Defence whenever they have returned from summits. I have challenged them on every proposition about the autonomy of a European defence policy, its structure and the arrangement that assumes that they will be in the driving seat. On no occasion have they been able to reply with confidence.
    The Minister has been parachuted into the job with no prospect of reaching the ground without an unpleasant jolt.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: That is because they packed his parachute.
    Mr. Cash: Indeed. The Prime Minister, in his Euro—enthusiasm—I would say Euro—fanaticism—traded his failure to convince the British people about the single currency for something else that he wanted to pull out of the bag. He knew that we did not have an opt—out on defence, and he thought that he would be able to take the initiative on defence policy and claim that he was leading Britain in Europe. That is what St. Malo, Cologne, Feira and Nice were all about. However, the right hon. Gentleman has got into an appalling quagmire, as has already been revealed.
    I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney). His view is similar to that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said of the Maastricht treaty that he had not read it.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Cash: In a minute. [Interruption.] Perhaps tomorrow! We have to consider the control and command to understand the basis on which such treaties are constructed. Without doing that, we do not know what is going on—
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents).
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 21 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) [Queen's recommendation having been signified],

    DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
    That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salary of the Information Commissioner—

    (1) In respect of service from 30th January 2001 to 31st March 2001, the salary of the Information Commissioner shall be at a yearly rate of £85,000.

    (2) For each year starting with 1st April. From 2001 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid—points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.

    162

    (3) The mid—point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Question agreed to.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    HIGHWAYS
    That the draft Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highways) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

    LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
    That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Representation Order Appeals) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

    CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY
    That the draft Climate Change Levy (Use as Fuel) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft Climate Change Levy (Combined Heat and Power Stations) Prescribed Conditions and Efficiency Percentages Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft Climate Change Agreements (Energy—intensive Installations) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft Climate Change Levy (Electricity and Gas) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft Climate Change Levy (Solid Fuel) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Part—Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
    That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

    CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
    That the Draft of Alterations to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.
    ACCESS TO JUSTICE
    That the Code of Conduct for Employees of the Legal Services Commission who provide services as part of the Criminal Defence Service, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

    FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
    That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 544) dated 26th February 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
    That the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
    That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    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.'—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

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

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

  PETITION

    Winter Fuel Payment
    12.41 am
    Mr. Desmond Browne: I present the petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs. Margaret Lees of Kilmaurs and more than 2,000 other signatories from my constituency and other parts of the United Kingdom. It supports the extension of the annual winter fuel payment to physically disabled people under the age of 60.
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of the Kilmarnock Forum on Disability and others,
    Declares that younger physically disabled people (ie. those under retirement age) are not eligible to receive the annual Winter Fuel Payment made by the Department of Social Security.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to review the eligibility to receive the Winter Fuel Payment for younger physically disabled currently receiving medium or high levels of Disability Living Allowance and/or Income Support.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Glass Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  12.42 am
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to represent the interests and real concerns of my constituents who work at United Glass in Harlow. United Glass employs more than 300 people in Harlow, and theirs are the kinds of skilled and semi—skilled manufacturing jobs that used to be the bedrock of the local economy. However, they are also the kind of jobs of which we have lost so many over the past 20–odd years.
  To put that in context, as recently as 1979 more than 50 per cent. of the jobs in Harlow were in manufacturing, whereas today the figure is barely above 20 per cent. Those are important jobs, because they provide ordinary working people with a career, stable employment and good remuneration—in short, the kind of job security to which many people aspire.
  Those good, high—quality jobs would be at risk if the Government were to grant regional selective assistance—which has been applied for through the Department of Trade and Industry—to Quinn Glass to build a new glass manufacturing plant on the site of the old Ince B power station that straddles the border between Chester and Ellesmere Port. That application is the nub of the case that I wish to make this evening.
  In making that case, let me make it clear that I am not asking for special favours, or for preferential treatment for United Glass and my constituents. I am simply asking for a fair deal and a level playing field. Open and fair competition in the marketplace is a spur to increased competitiveness. However, United Glass—along with other glass manufacturers—is not given taxpayers' money to support its enterprise, and I do not see why Quinn Glass should be given taxpayers' money to start an operation in a market in which there is already significant overcapacity, when the granting of regional selective assistance would—a great deal of evidence suggests—lead to the provision of jobs in the north—west of England at the expense of jobs in my constituency and elsewhere in Britain.
  I am speaking not just on behalf of United Glass and my constituents; every other glass manufacturer in Britain is concerned about the Quinn application. The Minister will know that my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), among others, have enunciated significant concerns, and that many of us accompanied representatives of the glass manufacturing industry to see a DTI Minister before Christmas to express our anxieties. We are united in our view that taxpayers' money should not be used to support Quinn Glass at the expense of jobs in our areas.
  Part of my reason for initiating the debate is that our fears are based on historical precedent. In April 1997, the Northern Ireland Office granted Quinn Glass a £13 million grant from the Norther Ireland Industrial Development Board to develop a plant at Derrylin, in County Fermanagh. As there was already overcapacity in
  166
  the industry, that has led—perhaps unsurprisingly—to a loss of nearly 1,000 jobs over the past few years, and a fall in profitability of nearly 50 per cent.
  The development in Northern Ireland was undoubtedly a factor in the closure of the United Glass plant in St. Helens. I have to say, however, that just as bad as the actual decision and its impact was the way in which the decision was made by the last Conservative Government. It was, by any reckoning, a hugely controversial decision, made on 17 April 1997. The contract was signed on 1 May 1997, the day of a general election that everyone—including, I believe, the Conservative party and Conservative Ministers—knew would bring a change of Government. Yet despite the knowledge that there would be a new Government with a new outlook, a new set of priorities and a new set of policies, the Conservative Government had the arrogance to press ahead with the decision, and by the time this Government came to power it was too late to reverse it.
  On the basis of that precedent, my constituents have a real fear that what happened in Northern Ireland can happen again. I hope and believe that under this Labour Government things can and will be different.
  Let me say something about the background to the current economic situation in the glass manufacturing industry, against which I think this application should be judged. There is undoubtedly overcapacity in the industry, and there are real problems in regard to profitability and sustainability. The UK glass manufacturing and container industries unquestionably face real problems, and have done for some time. Demand has been falling, owing to increased competition from alternative packaging materials, while supply has been increasing, owing to the industry's heavy investment in new technologies that have produced substantial productivity advances.
  Across the European Union, that has led to overcapacity, currently estimated at about 10 per cent. In Britain, the results have been stark: since 1997 glass manufacturing sales have declined by 7 per cent., and there has been a dramatic decline of 48 per cent. in earnings. That loss of profitability has been translated directly into a loss of jobs: the number of people employed in the industry has fallen from 5,400 to 4,400, a drop of nearly 20 per cent. I know of no other industry in which there has been such a significant decline in such a short time.
  Moreover, important elements of production have moved outside the United Kingdom because of the continuing high value of the pound outside the euro, which makes it more economical to produce goods outside the UK. That has applied to Heinz, Cadbury and Ovaltine. Let me say as an aside that the situation is a powerful antidote to the views of the Conservatives and other anti-Europeans—from whom we have just been hearing—who argue that we should never join the single currency, regardless of the consequences for British manufacturing industry.
  The situation is undoubtedly full of real difficulties. That is why the Quinn Glass application concerns us so much. We are concerned that Government funds could be used to increase capacity that will cause the loss of jobs elsewhere in the industry. The Quinn Glass proposal, to put it into context, is to establish capacity in the north—west of England to produce 1.1 billion bottles a

  167
  year. Based on year 2000 sales figures, such capacity equates to about 16.4 per cent. of total industry sales. On any analysis, that is a very substantial development.
  ECOTEC Research and Consulting has been commissioned by both United Glass and Wrexham Glass to quantify the likely impact of the establishment of such additional production on three areas of Great Britain—on Harlow, in my constituency; on the central belt of Scotland; and on south Yorkshire. There is already significant glass production in all three areas.
  ECOTEC's research and analysis is very clear that, overall, the best we can hope for is that the new facility will result in a zero-sum gain, with output from the new facility likely to displace a roughly equivalent amount of output from other United Kingdom-based producers. On a more pessimistic analysis, which is offered in the research, there is a view that for every new job that might be created at the proposed site, two existing jobs in the industry and in supporting businesses elsewhere could be lost. If Quinn Glass wants to wreak such havoc on the United Kingdom glass industry, so be it. However, I do not know why it should be aided and abetted by taxpayers' money in so doing.
  I should like, finally, to deal with two red herrings that are being offered to justify and support the Quinn application. First, it is suggested that the plant will not hit production elsewhere in Britain because Quinn wants to focus on exploiting the current importation of glass from elsewhere in the European Union. Last week's Packaging Magazine had clearly bought the spin from Quinn Glass which argued that import substitution would be its main target. I believe that that reassurance is false. I say that for various reasons.
  There is no evidence from Quinn Glass in Northern Ireland that it has a strategy in place to substitute for imports. We also have to understand the nature of the increase in imports—from 7 to 13 per cent. of containers—in recent years. The major driver of that increase has been the high value of sterling. The situation for any of the companies is unlikely to change until the value of sterling decreases appreciably. Moreover, when sterling's value does depreciate, not only Quinn Glass but all United Kingdom glass manufacturers are likely to benefit.
  It is also very important to understand that more than two thirds of imports into Britain are substitute production—for example, to replace production lost when furnaces are being refurbished—or are more specialised glass containers, such as toiletries and cosmetics and pharmaceutical containers. The specialised containers require specialised machines and, in some cases, different glass composition. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Quinn Glass intends to invest in such equipment at the proposed mainland site. Indeed, the reverse is true, with a suggestion that the site will produce high-volume beverage containers.
  As for the scale of available imports that Quinn could target, those 330 million containers are dwarfed by Quinn Glass's proposed 1.1 billion production capacity in the north-west of England. The figures just do not add up. The argument that everything will be all right and that the new plant will simply target imports lacks credibility and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
  168
  The second red herring that has to be exposed is the notion that if Quinn Glass does not go to the north-west of England, the jobs that would have been provided there will be lost to northern France, where the application will receive French Government support. There is a link between the situation France and that in Germany. In Germany, there have been moves to plastic in the soft drinks and water sectors, coupled with implementation of a deposit system that will soon be applied to currently non-returnable glass. Consequently, German glass demand is expected to decrease in the next two years by a staggering 1 million tonnes. That is such a dramatic change for the German glass industry that it has engaged consultants to work on securing German Government grants to close down glassworks.
  As 40 per cent. of the German glass industry is owned by French companies, and as there is already overcapacity in both France and the Benelux countries, it is inconceivable that, in current circumstances, the French Government would consider grant aid for extra capacity.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, who has informed me that the Barnsley development agency, which has established a good line of communication to the French authorities because of the sensitivity of the issue, has been unable to trace any line of inquiry from a British company. The argument that the jobs would go to France is unsustainable.
  I believe that thy, arguments against the granting of regional selective Assistance are very strong. As the Minister knows, in many senses the most important criterion in deciding whether to grant such assistance is the displacement impact on jobs. If it is concluded that grant aid would simply displace jobs elsewhere, the grant should be refused—and it is clear to me and to many others within the industry that grant aid in the circumstances that I have described would lead to a displacement of jobs. I hope that that will weigh heavily in the making of the final decision, and ultimately lead to a refusal.
  There are also strong grounds for believing that granting assistance would be deemed to be unfair state aid under European Union competition rules. Indeed, several glass manufacturers are considering approaching the European Commission over the issue if the Government grant aid.
  This is an issue of real significance and importance to my constituents in Harlow. More than 395 people are employed in the glass and associated sectors locally—320 directly by United Glass and the remainder indirectly supported by the sector It is not only the people who are directly employed who would be affected; there is also the knock-on benefit to the local economy. ECOTEC has estimated the associated supplier expenditure at £1.64 million a year, and employee expenditure in the Harlow economy at £3.6 million a year.
  This is an enormously important issue in Harlow, both for its economy and for the people whose employment depends on the plant. My constituents simply would not understand if Government money, provided by the taxpayer, were used to undermine their jobs and their local economy. I therefore strongly urge the Government to listen to our concerns. I hope and believe that they will act to protect my constituents' interests. All we are asking for is a level playing field, and I hope that we shall get it.
  12.57 am
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on securing the debate and on drawing attention so eloquently to what I know is an enormously important issue for him and for other right hon and hon. Members who have glass packaging plants in their constituencies.
  My hon. Friend has certainly teen a strong and assiduous supporter of those of his constituents who work at the United Glass factory in Harlow. He has set out admirably their concerns and the issues at stake in the regional selective assistance application. I must also acknowledge, as he has done, the close interest taken by other right hon. and hon. Members in the future of other existing glass packaging plants it South Yorkshire, Scotland and elsewhere, and the reaction of others who also see threats from potential investment in new plant.
  I know that my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members expressed those serious concerns on behalf of their constituents when they came with employee and management representatives from son le of the major firms to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade just before Christmas.
  We do not often debate the subject of glass in the House. I suspect that we have all tended to take glass packaging for granted, whether it was the humble milk bottle on the doorstep, the traditional bottle of beer, or the bottle of headache pills. Glass bottles have been with us for centuries. However, we have now come to accept that milk can also come in cartons, beer in cans and pills in foil wrapping in boxes.
  The fact that we still have a sizeable glass packaging industry in Britain is a reflection of the flexibility and adaptability of the manufacturers who have innovated, designed new products and sought out new markets. At the same time, there have been very strong competitive pressures on the glass industry generally which have, unfortunately, led to real difficulties, such as at Ravenhead Glass at St. Helens. The glass packaging sector, in particular, has had to respond to its own competitive threats, not least from alternative packaging materials.
  Before I turn to the specific issue raised by my hon. Friend, perhaps I could refer to the support that has been given to the British glass industry since the Government came to office—not, of course, including the previous grant to Quinn Glass. Since 1 May 1997, offers of regional selective assistance totalling some £18 million have been accepted by the United Kingdom glass industry overall, of which £1 million has gone towards the manufacture of hollow glass. In addition, my Department has been working with British Glass and Glass Technology Services Ltd. in a number of areas, including financial support for an innovation project to design safer screw threads on glass bottles and assistance with the establishment of a glass manufacturing improvement club.
  We held discussions last year with British Glass, the trade association for the sector, about other projects, including a competitiveness analysis I regret that those discussions have not progressed s we had hoped. However, I stress that if the glass industry wishes to take these or other issues forward, the door remains open. I strongly urge them to consider working with the Department on a competitiveness analysis. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that point to his constituents and to
  170
  British Glass. A competitiveness analysis can lead to the identification of further areas in which the Department and the sector could work to best advantage.
  On my hon. Friend's central concern, Quinn Glass has confirmed publicly that it is seeking UK Government support towards the establishment of a new manufacturing facility in the north-west region. I can therefore also confirm that the Department is currently considering and appraising an application for regional selective assistance from the company. However, as with any RSA application, all the information contained in it is commercially confidential. I know that my hon. Friend understands that, and I hope that he will also understand when I say that I am not able to discuss the company's application in detail.
  In potentially sensitive cases such as this, I have heard it suggested that the Government should not even consider an application for regional selective assistance. However, I stress that providing an application meets the qualifying criteria for regional selective assistance; we cannot refuse to consider it. Each application is rigorously assessed against a number of detailed criteria which are published. The application is then considered by the Industrial Development Advisory Board—an external adviser—which makes a recommendation to Ministers on each case.
  I am afraid, for the reasons that I have given, that I am not able to discuss progress on the Quinn Glass application for RSA, nor can I say when the case might reach the final stages of consideration. However, I can assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the specific issue of job displacement is one of the key criteria that has to be considered on any RSA application and will therefore be considered on this application.
  I have one final point on Quinn Glass; my hon. Friend has also referred to it. The Government would be powerless to prevent any investment by Quinn Glass if the plant were to be constructed without support—assuming, of course, that it met planning and other appropriate requirements. Nor could we stop imports to this country if that plant were to be constructed on an alternative site elsewhere. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents understand that.
  I referred earlier to the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in December, when he indicated that he was reviewing the glass packaging sector. That work has progressed on two fronts. First, as part of the appraisal for this application, against the published criteria, we are considering a number of economic areas, including job displacement. That work of appraisal is in hand but, like the Quinn Glass RSA application, the information will have to remain commercially confidential.
  We have also commissioned Key Note Ltd. to update an earlier market research report on the glass packaging sector published in 1999. That earlier report has been extensively quoted in other papers on the glass packaging sector which I have seen. The new report from Key Note Ltd. has just been received by the Department. It will form part of the information used in appraising the Quinn Glass RSA application. I am therefore pleased to announce that the Department can now make copies of the new Key Note market research available to the glass packaging industry.
  We are also maintaining close contact with the sector, and officials are scheduled to meet representatives from a number of manufacturers, including United Glass, next

  171
  week. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that in all our dealings with the glass packaging sector, Ministers and officials have tried to provide as much information as possible while respecting the requirements of commercial confidentiality.
  I must also mention letters from right hon. and hon. Members and information about the glass packaging industry which we have received from other parties in recent months. We have received a report commissioned by Barnsley development agency from ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd., which considered the economic impact of the Quinn Glass proposal on Barnsley, South Yorkshire and the wider regional economy. We have had a briefing paper on the UK glass packaging industry structure dated November 2000 and a paper from British Glass entitled "The UK Glass Container Industry Review", dated spring 2001. All those reports are being considered during the appraisal of the Quinn Glass RSA application.
  172
  My hon. Friend mentioned overcapacity, which is an important issue in the sector. I was interested to read in the latest paper from British Glass that the estimate of overcapacity in the glass packaging sector is now only 5 per cent. compared with the figure of up to 20 per cent. which was quoted it the meeting in December. I also noted that imports into the United Kingdom in 1999 took some 19 per cent. of the market, although of course part of that total may have come from UK firms importing from their associate plants on the continent.
  I end by saying how much I appreciate the enormous anxiety that will be felt during this period of uncertainty by the constituents whom my hon. Friend represents. Once again, I assure him and his constituents that we fully understand the importance of the issue and that we will take all the relevant factors, including job displacement, into account when the decision is made on the basis of the published criteria.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154265]

  Dr. Howells
  Current major advertising campaigns through COI are:

  Campaign

  Expenditure(£)(including VAT)

  Duration

  Departmental

  Paid Annual Leave

  4,034,956

  9–25 March

  UK Online for Business

  1,546,031

  19 February-end March

  British Trade International

  Trade Partners

  1,233,329

  5–end March

  Agency—;Small Business Service

  Hooked on Helping Business

  1,439,457

  14–28 March

  Miners' Compensation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in the South Shields constituency have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [153299]

  Mr. Hain
  In the area of South Shields (as defined by the postcodes NE3 and NE4, which encompass the South Shields constituency) IRISC, the Department's claims handlers have registered 728 claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease and 1,049 claims in relation to vibration white finger, VWF. To date, there have been 156 individual payments totalling £600,000 in respect of respiratory disease and 348 individual payments in respect of VWF amounting to £2.5 million.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the action he is taking to improve the consistency of the procedure for claiming compensation for vibration white finger between the Department for Social Security and his Department' schemes. [153612]

  Mr. Hain
  The Benefit Scheme administered by the DSS and the compensation scheme administered by this Department are two completely different schemes.

  Industrial Industries Disablement Benefits (IIDB) are payable to people who are disabled as a result of an accident at work or are one of over 70 prescribed diseases known to be a risk of occupation. VWF is one of these prescribed diseases. Benefit is normally paid only in
  2W
  respect of an assessment of 14 per cent. disability or more. Criteria for deciding claims are narrowly defined and set out in detail in legislation.

  The DTI's compensation scheme is based on common law principles and negligent exposure to vibration must be substantiated before any payment is made. An assessment is made on the level of disability which is set out in a Handling Arrangement agreed between the Department and miners' solicitors.

  Departmental Policies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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 [154185]

  Mr. Caborn
  The parliamentary constituency of Walthamstow has benefited from a range of initiatives since 1 May 1997. Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has been provided by the DTI through core programmes and the Business Links. While my Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a constituency basis, over 590 requests for advice, information and support from. SMEs in Walthamstow have been handled by the Business Links since May 1997.

  During the same period, grants totalling £215,000 have been awarded to companies through Regional Selective Assistance, as four of the wards in this constituency qualify for this aid.

  All wards in the constituency are eligible for the Enterprise Grant Scheme which was introduced in 2000.

  Credit Facilities
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to dissuade companies which offer credit facilities to customers from encouraging people to build up substantial debts. [154425]

  Dr. Howells
  Last November, I set up a taskforce, which includes credit industry representatives, to explore the causes and effects of over-indebtedness and develop practical solutions for achieving more responsible lending and borrowing. The taskforce will present proposals to me in April and I will be aiming to implement measures as soon as possible after that.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 12 March; what the Government's voting record at the Council was; and if he will make a statement.[153814]

  Mr. Caborn
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for consumers and corporate affairs represented the UK at the Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council in Brussels on 12 March.

  The Council discussed the Cardiff economic reform process and reached agreement on conclusions for input to the Stockholm European Council which support the reform agenda agreed at the Lisbon Summit in March
  3W
  2000. The Council also discussed the Commission's Communications on the removal of barriers to trade in services, simplification of the regulatory environment and the Commission's Communication on New European Labour Markets.

  Efforts to achieve a single EU-wide Community Patent were discussed, but there was no agreement on procedural conclusions allowing an early approach to the European Patent Office. The issue will be discussed again at the June Internal Market Council.

  The Council discussed the Presidency's draft compromise on the Directive on Distance Marketing of Financial Services but was unable to reach political agreement. This will also revert to the June Council.

  There were Commission presentations on the Strategy for the Customs Union; proposals relating to the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms; the Green Paper on integrated product policy; and the forthcoming Communication on the eEurope Action Plan. The Presidency introduced its strategy on integration of environmental protection and sustainable development into Internal Market policy, which will be discussed at the Council in June and adopted at the Gothenburg Summit. The Council generally endorsed the Commission's approach to a strategy for a chemicals policy, with a number of member states emphasising that the competitiveness of the EU industry needed to be taken into account. It took note of the progress made on the negotiations on the Commission's proposals relating to a European Food Authority.

  There were no votes at the Council.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek from the Chairman of the Post Office, an explanation of the reasons for which he has failed to reply to letters to him dated 12 January and 24 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to sporting opportunities for Post Office workers. [154068]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been advised by the Post Office that the Chairman's office has been in contact with the parliamentary office of my right hon. Friend. They have apologised for the failure to reply to these letters, which was due to an internal administrative error, and say that a response has now been prepared.

  Weights and Measures
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the financial effects on traders who(a) have and (b) have not complied with regulations requiring loose goods to be sold in metric units. [154136]

  Dr. Howells
  Most imperial weighing machines can be converted to metric at an average cost of £100 per machine. The price of a new metric weighing machine starts at about £450. No assessment has been made of the financial effects of non-compliance because it is expected that the conversion will be completed in the near future.
  4W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards compliance with regulations requiring loose goods to be sold in metric units. [154135]

  Dr. Howells
  It is expected that the remaining imperial machines will be converted to metric or be replaced by metric weighing machines in the near future.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and compliance of United Kingdom legislation introduced as a result of Directive 80/181/EEC. [154190]

  Dr. Howells
  The conversion of all weighing machines to metric units, as required by Directive 80/181/EEC as amended in 1989, has taken longer than expected, but is expected to be completed in the near future.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of imperial Weighing machines still in use in the United Kingdom. [154134]

  Dr. Howells
  There are approximately 160,000 weighing machines in use for the sale of goods loose at the point of sale. The Department understands that nearly 130,000 are now metric and that just over 30,000 are still imperial.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what circumstances he uses the powers available to him under section 71 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to seek to encourage proper enforcement by local weights and measures authorities of legislation introduced as a result of Directive 80/181/EEC; and if he will make a statement. [154140]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department considers that local weights and measures authorities have taken steps to secure compliance with regulations on units of measurement that implement Directive 80/181/EEC as amended. The Department will consider any representations alleging a lack of proper enforcement.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation requiring retailers of mobile telephones to obtain the name and address of those purchasing such equipment and for this information to be registered with a telephone licensing authority. [152307]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is currently no plan to introduce legislation requiring purchasers of mobile phones to provide their name and address. However, this is an important issue and one which will be kept under review.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the outcome of the consultation on telecommunication mast development. [154293]

  Ms Hewitt
  The announcement on the outcome of the consultation was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 16 March 2001. Details of the announcement can be found on the DETR website at www.detr.gov.uk.

  Export Credits (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the applications for credit guarantees relating to Saudi Arabia received by the ECGD in the last 20 years, indicating the companies, amounts and projects in Saudi Arabia involved. [153726]

  Mr. Caborn
  Over the last 20 years ECGD has issued no guarantees in respect of credit business with Saudi Arabia. There have however been some 54 guarantees issued totalling £14.6 billion in respect of cash contracts.

  Details of applications which have not been the subject of a guarantee are subject to legitimate confidentiality under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and are not included in this answer.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the impact of foot and mouth disease has been on the Royal Mail postal service; when full postal service will be restored; and if he will make a statement. [154219]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been advised by the Post Office that Royal Mail and Parcelforce Worldwide are following advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about delivering letters and parcels during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Guidelines have been issued to all staff about deliveries in affected areas, and where advised appropriate precautions are being taken.

  Post Office staff can deliver mail and parcels as normal in all areas of the country except those within the restriction zones where special arrangements have been agreed with affected customers. Royal Mail and Parcelforce Worldwide are co-operating fully with all sanitary arrangements, which have been put in place by landowners outside quarantined areas regarding deliveries.

  The Post Office is in constant contact with MAFF and will continue to co-operate fully with their instructions. The full service will be restored when the current outbreak has been eradicated.

WALES

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, was of the two visits to Brussels undertaken by a departmental or non-departmental special adviser, mentioned in his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 46W. [152061]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The two visits referred to in my earlier reply included one to Brussels and one to Dublin. The average total cost per trip including travel, accommodation and subsistence for the departmental special adviser was £649

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152043]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  All Government Departments are required to report annually on timber purchases, explaining what steps are being taken to buy timber and timber related products from sustainable and legal sources and the quantity and types of purchase. Information on timber procurement by the Wales Office will be published, along with information for other departments, in a report by Green Ministers in the autumn of 2001. The Wales Office has no other plans to publish information on timber procurement.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Welsh members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss issues raised in the Parliament's manifesto. [152962]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that most parts of Wales have yet to elect members. When this process has been completed, I shall be happy to consider an invitation to meet them.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [152787]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: Pay settlements for the Wales Office are linked to those of the National Assembly for Wales. The full value of the award for 2000–01 was 5 per cent., taking into account the basic award, performance and progression elements, changes to the pay bands, and all other elements. The average percentage increases in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior Civil Service, was 4.2 per cent. for 2000–01.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [153416]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not have an advertising budget. The vast majority of advertising relates to recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals, costing £1 million-£million annually.

  DFID has no agencies or other public bodies.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to promote human rights in poorer countries. [153752]

  Clare Short
  Human rights are central to my Department's work which is dedicated to the realisation of the human rights of the poorest people of the world. In October last year we published our strategy for achieving this goal, entitled "Realising human rights for poor people". A copy was placed in the Library of the House. I shall send one to my hon. Friend.

  Ethiopia (Refugee Returns)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to investigate the refugee screening process of the Oramo people in Sudan returning to Ethiopia; and if she will make a statement. [153721]

  Clare Short
  We support the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Ethiopian, Chadian, Somali and Ugandan refugees in 2001, unless after screening they have compelling reasons to remain in the Sudan.

  Colombia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to Plan Colombia. [153935]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Plan Colombia is the Colombian Government's strategy for tackling the interconnected problems of internal violence, social and economic inequality, abuse of human rights and drugs cultivation and trafficking.

  Concerns are raised by some aspects of Plan Colombia, in particular the eradication of illegal crops by aerial spraying. The UK has not given any financial or other support to the plan. Instead, the UK is contributing to and fully supports assistance to Colombia through the European Union of 105 million euro over the next five years. The EU package will focus on measures to support human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to(a) the Colombian Government, (b) the USA Government and(c) international organisations about the position of the trade union movement in Colombia. [153932]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are very concerned about increasing levels of violence in Colombia, particularly that directed at trade unionists and other human rights defenders.

  The British Embassy in Bogota is in regular contact with the main trade unions in Colombia, and has discussed the position of trade unionists there with both the ILO special representative, Rafael Alburquerque, and the Colombian Government. Following a meeting with Alexander Lopez of the CUT Union (Central Unitaria de Trabajadores), who has received death threats in
  8W
  Colombia, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office wrote Colombia's Vice-President on 21 December 2000 to underline our concern that he and other trade union leaders be afforded the protection necessary to go about their lives and work safely.

  The UK Government have a regular and on-going dialogue with the US Government about the human rights situation in Colombia.

  The UK supported the appointment to Colombia in June 2000 of a special representative of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to report on trade union rights and the security of trade union members and to verify measures taken by the Colombian Government to protect trade unionists.

  We expect the European Union to make a statement on these issues when the Commission on Human Rights meets in Geneva from 19 March to 27 April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stationery
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if bespoke stationery provided for hon. Members' use is 100 per cent. recycled; and what the definition is of the term environmentally friendly, used in the House of Commons stationery catalogue. [154404]

  Mrs. Roe
  Bespoke stationery, as approved by the Administration Committee in May 1998, is manufactured from 75 per cent.
  pre-consumer waste and 25 per cent. virgin pulp harvested from sustainable forests. The current stationery catalogue contains no reference to environmentally friendly stationery.

SCOTLAND

  Policy and Strategy Units
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when her policy unit was established; which of its reports are placed in the public domain; how many departmental or non-departmental special advisers participate in its work; how many regular(a) non-departmental and (b) departmental staff participate in its work; and how many of these work for the unit on a full-time basis. [150361]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not have a policy unit.

  SERC Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the contracts that exist between SERC and the Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if she will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151349]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has one contract with SERC, for the provision of cleaning services at the Department's office in Edinburgh. There have been no other contracts with SERC since the Department was established on 1 July 1999.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the terms of reference, composition and consultation mechanisms of the Performance and Innovation Unit's inquiry into health in developing countries, indicating when it will report. [152120]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's project has three key aims:

  (i) to develop a more effective approach to reducing the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria in developing countries;

  (ii) to identify which instruments might best deliver solutions at an affordable price to developing and developed countries; and

  (iii) to produce a framework for a more effective partnership between governments and the private sector, including the pharmaceutical industry, and the voluntary sector to combat these diseases in developing countries.

  The challenge is to find mechanisms to improve incentives, deploying new and existing solutions for tackling infectious diseases alongside developing countries' health care delivery systems is and policies. This project will consider the attractiveness, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and affordability of the different types of the alternative approaches; sustainability will be an important criterion for assessing interventions.

  As with all PIU projects, the project team comprises secondees and other Government Departments, including the Department for International Development, as well as specialists from the academic and private sectors. An advisory group is to be appointed including members from a wide range of backgrounds.

  The project team is developing its ideas with a wide range of people and organisations already undertaking work in these areas. The team works closely with the Department for International Development and HM Treasury, and is meeting international stakeholders, including the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, UNAIDS and Governments of developing countries as well as NGOs and the private sector.

  The project's major output will be a set of proposals to feed into the UK position at the G8 summit in July 2001. Two consultation papers have been published so far, and are available on the project's website: http:// www/cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/health/ mainpage.html.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish the report prepared on the future of UK renewable energy by the Performance and Innovation Unit. [154196]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit study on resource productivity and renewable energy will be published in the autumn. The study will outline a long-term strategy for moving to a low-carbon, low-waste, knowledge-intensive economy in which renewable energy technologies are expected to play a major role. The study will set out how the £100 million announced in my environment speech on Tuesday 6 March will be used to support the development of a range of renewable technologies.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the overall economic consequences for areas where foot and mouth disease has been discovered; if he will identify the consequential losses that flow from the disease with a view to proposing a package of financial measures to assist; and if he will make a statement. [153975]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 March 2001, Official Report, columns 753–54W.

  The overall economic consequences cannot be quantified until the full extent of the outbreak is known. However, the situation is clearly a serious one. That is why I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to chair a Task Force to consider the implications of the outbreak for the rural economy, both immediately and in the longer term and to report to me on appropriate measures.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with business the implementation of environmental productivity indicators and long-term resource targets contained in his speech on environmental policy at Chatham House on 6 March. [154194]

  The Prime Minister
  We are already taking this forward. Last month, the Department of Trade and Industry held a joint conference with the Green Alliance on how to measure improvements in resource productivity. We will follow this up with further discussion with business, including asking the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment for its views on the use of long-term resource targets to stimulate business innovation and improvement. The Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office is also carrying out a major study on resource productivity and renewable energy.

  House of Lords (Membership)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to exclude from membership of the House of Lords those persons who are not resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. [154243]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: As the Government made clear in their White Paper "Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords" (Cm 4183), I have relinquished much of my power over the award of peerages. I have retained the right to determine how many recommendations to ask for from the other political parties and the Appointments Commission, but otherwise have made it clear that I will pass these recommendations on to Her Majesty, except in the most exceptional circumstances such as those endangering the security of the realm.

  Leaked Reports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what mechanism exists for investigating leaks of reports commissioned by him where the leaks occur before he receives them. [154398]
  11W
  The Prime Minister
  It would be open for the author of an independent report commissioned by the Government to request the Government's assistance to investigate alleged leaks of drafts of that report. I have received no such request in respect of any recent independent report, nor do I expect one.

  The right hon. Member for Hartlepool
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) delivered a letter on his behalf to the President of Syria during his recent visit to that country. 1154332]

  The Prime Minister
  When in Syria, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was invited, at short notice, to a private meeting with the President where he delivered a short courtesy letter from the Prime Minister.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the rules in the ministerial code of conduct governing Ministers visiting hon. Members' constituencies. [154408]

  The Prime Minister
  The rules are set out in paragraph 79 of the ministerial code.

  £000

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue support grant

  94,657

  102,643

  107,450

  107,450

  118,642

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  49,620

  52,488

  57,187

  64,381

  60,123

  Housing capital allocations

  3,525

  4,456

  3,113

  2,665

  2,494

  SRB funding—Bridging the Gap

  193

  550

  547

  992

  691

  Health ladder

  —

  —

  75

  1,050

  1,500

  Transport supplementary grant

  154

  147

  169

  n/a

  —

  Transport annual capital guideline

  154

  147

  169

  n/a

  —

  Transport block supplementary credit approval

  640

  479

  644

  1,375

  —

  Capital Challenge (supplementary credit and basic credit approvals)

  1,460

  1,634

  162

  0

  0

  1 Where known

  Mr. Drew
  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 the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May1997 [152404]

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant'(£ million)

  1.736

  1.462

  1.305

  1.013

  1.288

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1 (£ million)

  3.407

  3.465

  3.732

  4.149

  4.104

  Housing Investment Programme (£ million)

  1.630

  1.167

  1.250

  2.660

  1.179

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy2 (£ million)

  2.332

  1.790

  1.396

  0.982

  4.588

  Capital Receipts Initiative (£ million)

  0.282

  0.855

  0.869

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme (£ million)

  0.060

  0.030

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing3(£)

  132,597

  132,597

  132,597

  132,597

  132,597

  SRB funding4(£)

  nil

  41,580

  117,907

  862,066

  85,590

  Transport Supplementary Grant5 (£ million)

  2.565

  1.555

  3.573

  0.463

  0.409

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline5(½ million)

  1.965

  1.489

  2.973

  0.389

  0.408

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant6 (£ million)

  0

  0.25

  0.999

  0

  0

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant6 (£ million)

  0

  0.794

  0.794

  0.794

  1.0

  1The figures shown for Revenue Support Grant [1] and income from National Non-Domestic Rates [1] are the amount received by Stroud District Council.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Policies
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152031]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ilford, North has benefited from two strategic Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) schemes in the London Borough of Redbridge, Bridging the Gap and the Health Ladder to Social Inclusion.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 required the establishment of partnerships covering all local authority areas led by the police and the local authorities to reduce crime. Local initiatives supported under the Government's crime reduction programme include two CCTV schemes—a £203,000 scheme in Ilford town centre and a £714,000 safer parking scheme.

  The principal funding that this Department has provided to the London Borough of Redbridge in 1997 to 2002 is shown in the table. These included grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

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

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to Stroud in 1997– 98 to 2000–01 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals from revenue and capital expenditure.
  13W
  2The figure for Housing Revenue Account Subsidy for 2000–01 is provisional and may be revised by subsequent claim forms. The figure for 2001–02 is based on the maintenance and management grant for the area, multiplied by the number of houses eligible.

  3 The figures for Loan Charges Defective Housing for 2000–01 are provisional at this stage since it is claimed retrospectively.

  4SRB Funding—N.B. SRB was not paid to Stroud in 1997–98. Also the 2001–01 figure is forecast and another 5,000 may be paid at some stage.

  5Transport Supplementary Grant and Transport Annual Capital Guideline represent the amount paid to Gloucestershire in 1997–98 to 2001–02. 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 Stroud. It is for the local authorities to decide where within their boundaries these resources are applied.

  6Rural bus challenge—figures represent awards in that year, actual expenditure may be over a longer period. 2000–01 figures for RBSG represent allocation, actual outturn figure is not yet known.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153000]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to Wakefield local

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  105.616

  113.327

  121.378

  117.791

  126.779

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  69.240

  72.239

  78.291

  88.749

  86.879

  Housing Investment Programme

  26.812

  5.541

  6.302

  314.711

  422.429

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.227

  4.153

  4.272

  n/a

  n/a

  SRB Funding

  2.33

  2.14

  3.39

  3.92

  2.82

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (award date)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59.990

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.721

  0.702

  0.876

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.721

  0.702

  0.876

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.104

  1.086

  1.130

  4.608

  6—

  1Where known

  Notes:

  Housing Investment Programme

  2 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98. Single Housing Pot introduced 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  4Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in sound condition. Wakefield's MRA allocation is £18,088 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  £

  Wakefield

  M&M allowance per dwelling

  1997–98

  761.67

  1998–99

  767.98

  1999–2000

  791.67

  2000–01

  832.01

  2001–02

  839.81

  Note:

  Figures for the HRA are given as allowance, per dwelling rather than in global figures

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  5Wakefield is one of 88 local authority areas, which have been targeted for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and over the next three financial years will receive £9.990 million (£2.222 million,

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0

  0

  3.000

  2.500

  757.607

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  0

  0.364

  0.209

  0.917

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.556

  0.556

  0.556

  0.710

  7This figure has yet to be split between the West Yorkshire PTA and five other West Yorkshire highway authorities

  14W
  authority in the year's 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 the Hemsworth constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  £3.329 million and £4.439 million respectively over the next three F/Ys).

  Because of this, Wakefield is also eligible for the Community Empowerment Fund £400,000 over the next three years) and the Community Chest (no details yet, but will be a national fund of £50 million over three years).

  Transport

  6This figure will not be known until agreement has been reached on the split between the five West Yorkshire local authorities of the Transport Supplementary Credit Approval allocated to the West Yorkshire PTA.

  In addition, the following funds have been allocated to the West Yorkshire PTA, some of which have been/will he spent in the Wakefield MDC area:
  15W
  SRB Schemes in Wakefield Area

  Round 1: SESKU—Wakefield Economic Alliance

  Aims to introduce a coherent and sustainable programme of regeneration to break the decline of the South Elmsall, South Kirby and Upton (SESKU) areas which have been dependent upon the coal industry.

  SRB Support: £ 6.563 million

  Scheme Total: £64.76 million

  Round 3: Foundations for a Competitive Economy

  Four-year scheme led by Wakefield Learning Partnership aimed at raising IT attainment and skill levels, fostering a culture of lifetime learning and equipping people for employment through community multi-media centres.

  SRB Support: £2.3 million

  Scheme Total: £7 million

  Round 4: Fresh Aire

  Six-year community-based scheme focusing on employment, education and training, community safety, and community capacity building. The target area covers the Airedale and Warwick, the most socially excluded estates in the district.

  SRB Total: £4.127 million Scheme Total: £14.910 million

  Round 5: Hemsworth Coalfield

  A six year scheme submitted by the Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership led by Wakefield MDC which focuses on the coalfields area in the south of Wakefield District, covering the communities of Hemsworth and Elmsall.

  SRB Total: £8.050 million

  Scheme Total: £20.319 million

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1991–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  117.119

  124.896

  131.060

  129.066

  137.215

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  63.941

  66.425

  71.946

  80.861

  78.797

  Housing Investment Programme

  24.383

  4.257

  5.054

  112.524

  416.590

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.015

  3.424

  3.241

  —

  —

  New Deal for Communities Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  550.0

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (award date)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  619.8

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  1.216

  0.383

  0.785

  Nil

  711.350

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  1.216

  0.383

  0.785

  9.750

  79.120

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.300

  0.270

  1.280

  9.934

  74.320

  1Where known

  Housing notes:

  21997–98 HIP allocation inherited from previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

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

  4Resource 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. Doncaster's MRA allocation for 2001 02 is £11.976 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation.

  5 Over 10 years

  6Over three years

  Doncaster's overall capital allocation of –16.590 million,
  represents an increase of 261.60 per cent. on the inherited 1997–98 HIP allocation.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  £

  Doncaster

  M&M allowance per house

  1997–98

  748.06

  1998–99

  753.97

  1999–2000

  776.37

  2000–01

  814.59

  2001–02

  820.29

  16W
  Round 6 Working on Cold Coal—North Wakefield

  To further the regeneration of neighbourhoods and communities in the northern half of Wakefield District. Increase the employability of those excluded from the regional economy and reviving the neighbourhoods within which they live.

  SRB Total: £7.87 million

  Scheme Total: £28.93 million

  European Funding

  Under the 1997–99 Objective 2 Programme, the Action Plan for the Wakefield district was worth £5.3 million in ERDF and £2.4 million in ESF, together with capital projects (a development site and Yorkshire Sculpture Park projects worth over £6 million in ERDF/ESF).

  Objective 3 (ESF), Wakefield had £113.000 in 1998 and £236,000 in 1999.

  Objective 4 (ESF), Wakefield had £194,000 for 1998 and £490,000 for 1999.

  Caroline Flint
  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 Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153517]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to Doncaster 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 Don Valley constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied

  Note:

  In addition, Doncaster benefits from HRA subsidy. Figures are given as allowance per dwelling rather than in global figures.

  Transport:

  7 This figure includes £9 million Transport Supplementary Grant held back until required.

  In addition, the following funds have been allocated to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, some of which have been/will be spent in the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area.
  17W

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  5,500

  6.125

  8.500

  11.923

  22.500

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  0

  0.028

  1.383

  0.674

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.339

  0.339

  0.339

  0.433

  SRB

  No awards have been made to Doncaster since May 1997. However the Dearne Valley was awarded £1.6 million in 1998 to help the long-term unemployed back to work and to improve educational attainment. Doncaster also stands to benefit from the two successful South Yorkshire Coalfield bids (£16.5 million in 1999 and £80 million in 2000) and the £0.6 million bid in 2000 by the South Yorkshire Black Forum to support ethnic communities.

  European Funding

  Doncaster has had 2 Objective 2 Action Plans (covering Business Support and Community Development). Together they have had allocations of £6.3 million ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and £5.4 million ESF (European Social Fund). There were also Objective 2 offers for Tourism projects (including the Earth Centre) of £4.5 million and for the development of major industrial sites (Redhouse/Brodsworth) of some £2 million.

  South Yorkshire has been designated an Objective 1 area, of which Doncaster and Don valley are a part, and stands to benefit from over £700 million of European Funds over the next seven years.

  Vehicle Tax
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many owners of vehicles were prosecuted in 2000 for(a) not registering and (b) not paying tax on their vehicles in 2000. [153760]

  Mr. Hill
  In 2000 there were 4,755 successful prosecutions for failure to comply with registration requirements and an additional 7,772 offenders paid out of court settlements. There were also 229,069 successful prosecutions for not paying Vehicle Excise Duty. An additional 202,020 motorists paid out of court settlements.

  Abandoned Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which agencies are responsible for the reporting, checking and removal of abandoned motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [153800]

  Mr. Hill
  The agencies responsible for the reporting of abandoned motor vehicles are the local authorities, the police and the Environment Agency. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police are responsible for checking abandoned vehicles and contractors employed by these bodies and the local authorities are responsible for their removal.

  New arrangements for closer working between these bodies are currently being piloted.

  Rail Accident (Hither Green)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the collision of two Connex South Eastern trains outside Hither Green station on 12 March. [153755]

  Mr. Hill
  At 08.30am on Monday 12 March, the 07.58am Connex South Eastern Sevenoaks to Cannon Street passenger train passed a signal at danger at Hither Green. It continued for approximately half a mile before running through points which were set for the 08.08am Connex South Eastern Crayford to Cannon Street passenger train. A collision then occurred with the front of the Crayford train striking the side of the Sevenoaks train. There was no derailment, but both trains sustained superficial damage.

  Four people were taken to hospital for treatment of minor injuries. The traction current was isolated to allow passengers to begin to leave the train at 10.00am. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) were at the scene and have confirmed that the collision was caused by the driver of the Sevenoaks train passing a signal at danger (SPAD).

  All serious SPADs are thoroughly investigated by HMRI and the rail industry. Further details of this incident will be reported in a future edition of HSE's monthly SPAD report, copies of which are placed in both House Libraries each month.

  Initial indications suggest that this incident would have been prevented by the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS). Regulations made under this Government require that TPWS be installed across the network by the end of 2003.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times in(a) this Parliament and (b) the last Parliament, the Audit Commission has given evidence to the House of Commons Environment and Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committees. [153942]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Audit Commission has in this Parliament given evidence to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on five occasions. The Audit Commission is reviewing its archives to ascertain the number of occasions it gave evidence to the Environment Select Committee in the last Parliament and the Controller of Audit will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the changes the Government have made to the powers of(a) the Audit Commission and (b) the District Audit Service in the past three years. [153799]
  19W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government amended the powers of the Audit Commission, and of auditors appointed by it, in the Local Government Act 1999, the Health Act 1999 and the Local Government Act 2000. The Audit Commission was given a new power to inspect compliance by Best Value authorities with the requirements of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999; and to work jointly with the Commission for Health Improvement in the Health Act 1999. Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission have been given new a new power to audit the best value performance plans of Best Value authorities under the Local Government Act 1999. The powers of auditors to issue prohibition orders have been replaced by a power to issue advisory notices. In the Local Government Act 2000, the auditors' surcharging powers were repealed.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government(a) signed and (b) ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government. [153817]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The European Charter of Local
  Self-Government was signed by this Government on 3 June 1997 and ratified on 24 April 1998.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy towards scrutiny by local government of services provided by(a) the National Health Service and (b) local water companies. [153806]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under their new constitutions, a council's overview and scrutiny committees can make reports or recommendations on any matters which affect their local areas or communities.

  The Government have long recognised the democratic deficit in the NHS at local level, and for this reason are making provision to ensure that scrutiny of the NHS is placed in the hands of democratically elected councillors.

  The Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently before Parliament, provides for overview and scrutiny committees of county councils, county borough councils (in Wales), unitary authorities and London borough councils, established under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000, to take over the scrutiny of local NHS services from Community Health Councils. The Bill also provides for the involvement of district councils under joint scheme arrangements.

  Overview and scrutiny committees will have new powers to review local NHS bodies, and will make reports and recommendations to the bodies which they review. Local NHS bodies will have to provide clear justification for any recommendations which they do not accept. They will be subject to a duty to provide information about their operation and activities requested by an overview and scrutiny committee, and their Chief Executives will be required to attend committee meetings twice a year to answer questions about their organisations.

  Health authorities will have a specific duty to consult overview and scrutiny committees on any major changes to services in their area. If a committee finds that the proposed changes are not in the interests of the local community it will be able to refer the matter to the new
  20W
  national Independent Reconfiguration Panel. A committee may also refer proposed changes to the panel if it believes that the process of involving patients and the public in their development is inadequate.

  As to local water companies, under section 77 of the Water Industry Act 1991, local authorities have a duty to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies, including private supplies, provided to premises in their area. Section 200 of the Act also gives a duty to every sewerage undertaker to provide local authorities with copies of maps of public sewers and any modifications to those maps.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the guidance on cow councillors' allowances issued since May 1997. [1539041

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In August 1997, the DETR issued a guidance document entitled "Guidance on Councillors' Allowances, Tax and Social Security". This updated an earlier version of this guidance which had been issued in 1993. We are currently consulting on draft statutory guidance which will give guidance to councils about members' allowances following the introduction of the requirement to establish and maintain independent remuneration panels and the abolition of attendance allowance.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the pilot schemes that have been initiated with local councils since May 1997 and the councils which have been involved in each pilot. [153818]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government have taken to attract more(a) women, (b) young people, (c) people of an ethnic minority background and (d) people with disabilities to become local councillors. [153903]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In our White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch With the People" (Cm 4014) we stated our belief that a combination of the new rewarding roles envisaged for councillors and steps taken to address some potential financial and other disincentives would serve to encourage a wider cross section of the community to serve as councillors. We have now legislated for new council constitutions which will open up new and rewarding roles, and we are consulting on a new regime for allowances including, for example, proposals for a new child carers and dependant carers' allowance.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on local councils holding annual elections with a third of councillors up for election each year; how many councils currently hold annual elections; and how many did so in 1997. [153772]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our policy on councils electing one third of their members each year for three years out of four is set out in the White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014). There are 131 local authorities in England which elect one
  21W
  third of councillors each year for three years out of four. Of these, two authorities held elections during 1997. Part IV of the Local Government Act 2000 provides us with powers to implement fully our policy.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) publish Ministers' instructions to civil servants relating to the allocation of local government grants and(b) take steps to make the local government finance settlement process more transparent. [153902]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We consulted local government on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2001–02 in November. The reasons for our decisions on allocating grant in response to that consultation were given to the House by my colleague, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 19W.

  The method of grant calculation is laid out in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02. Other related documents and statements are publicly available and can be found in the Official Report, the House of Commons library and on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website.

  Creating a more intelligible and transparent local government finance system is one of our key aims; and reforms to this end were outlined in last September's local government finance green paper. Our White Paper later this year will set out our decisions on the way forward.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government policy is on the establishment of more unitary authorities in local government. [153776]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have indicated that a move to elected regional government in England would imply changing to a predominantly unitary system of local government. It is too early to say what this would mean in practice, as Government would need to take careful note of what the people in the regions think. In the meantime, there are no plans at present to reform the structure of local government in England and no presumption that, if there is to be any local government restructuring, it would have to come before the introduction of regional government.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if proposed referendums on regional assemblies will include options involving abolition of county councils in two-tier areas. [153773]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We remain committed to move to directly-elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. No decisions have been taken on the form of the proposals which might be the subject of such referendums

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidances he has issued on the conduct of referendums held by councils on local issues; and if he will make a statement.[153940]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 539W.
  22W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to introduce simpler local government grant system which is based predominantly on population. [154142]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to simplify the local government grant system and to base it predominantly on population. [153847]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance green paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for all local authorities fairer. A White paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  The existing formulae for distributing revenue grant are based predominantly on local authority population figures including relevant client groups (such as schoolchildren or elderly people). Were we to decide to continue to distribute grant by formula, this would continue to be the case.

  As with the present system, such a formula could be modified to take other factors into account such as levels of deprivation and the higher costs of recruiting and retaining local authority staff—but in a more transparent and comprehensible way than the present system.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that a future grant system will reflect the importance of community consultation to local democracy. [153848]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last September's local government finance green paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for local authorities fairer. One option was to distribute grant on the basis of consideration of an authority's corporate plan. Clearly, such a plan would reflect community consultation processes.

  The other option was a grant distribution system based on formulae plus safety valve grant, targeted grant and local public service agreements (PSAs). Under such a system, local PSAs would provide the scope to reflect the priorities of the local community.

  A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward. More generally, the green paper noted the welcome trend of consulting local taxpayers about local tax and spending decisions—and the Government are working with the Local Government Association to devise good practice in doing so.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if future grant distributions will ensure that the specific needs of town and country authorities which have both urban and rural characteristics are adequately met through the SSA system. [153850]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 537W.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a White Paper on local government finance. [153852]
  23W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish a White paper on local government finance. [154137]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A White Paper on local government finance will be published later this year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the introduction of new council tax bands; [1539011

  (2) if he will make a statement on Government policy on the introduction of regional variations in the valuations used to determine council tax banding. [153816]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We believe that the council tax is working well as a local tax. In our Green Paper on modernising local government finance, which we published in September 2000, we explained that the banding system makes tax bills predictable and stable. A number of respondents to the Green Paper proposed that changes should be made to the structure of the council tax bands. We are considering what they had to say in the context of preparing a White Paper on local government finance which we intend to publish later this year.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average Band D council tax was in(a) England.(b) Wales and (c) Scotland in (i) 1997—98 and (ii) 2000—01. [153916]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The average band D council tax for England was £688 in 1997–98 and –847 in 2000–01. Council tax levels for Wales and Scotland are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive respectively.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's capping powers in relation to local government expenditure and budgets. [153769]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have powers to protect local people from excessive council tax increases. These powers are more discriminating than the previous system of crude and universal capping and enable us to look at councils' budget increases over several years. They are also more flexible: in addition to in-year capping the Secretary of State may set a national budget requirement to be used for future comparisons or he may cap the following year's budget.

  When we have information on all local authority budgets and council taxes for 2001–02, we shall need to consider carefully whether any of them are excessive, and what action we might take as a result.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has put in place to reduce the financial pressure on local authorities arising from implementing the Government's initiative relating to concessionary bus fares. [154139]
  24W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has put in place to ease the financial pressure on local authorities implementing the Government's initiative relating to concessionary bus fares. [153846]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr.Hill), on 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 537W.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason district councils have been excluded from the local public service agreements pilot schemes; and what plans he has to include district councils in the public service agreements scheme. [154141]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The local PSA pilot was taken forward with top-tier authorities rather than district councils because the majority of the national PSA targets that relate to local authority services relate to the services of top-tier authorities. The Local Government Association is working with a group of district councils on how the PSA approach might be applied to districts, and we will consider any proposals they make.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason district councils have been excluded from the local public service agreements pilot scheme; and if he will review this decision. [153844]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The local PSA pilot was taken forward with top-tier authorities rather than district councils because the majority of the national PSA targets that relate to local authority services relate to the services of top-tier authorities We will indeed review this decision in the future. The Local Government Association are working with a group of district councils on how the PSA approach might be applied to districts, and we will consider any proposals they make.

  Airline Seating
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the spacing of seats in economy sections of passenger airlines; if he proposes to introduce minimum space requirements; and if he will make a statement [154130]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Secretary of State has received a limited number of letters from members of the public about the spacing of seats in economy class. There have been statutory requirements for minimum seat pitch on UK-registered aircraft since 1989, introduced for safety reasons related to the evacuation of an aircraft in an emergency.

  In their response to the recent House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into air travel and health, the Government referred to CAA-funded research into seat size and spacing. The study, carried out on behalf of the JAA, is considering the relationship between aircraft seat dimensions and passenger sizes. The work looks at the changing size of the European population but also includes a review of recent DVT research. The report
  25W
  indicates additional areas where further work may be necessary. The study (and any subsequent follow-on study) will provide the Government with the information necessary to review current regulations on seat spacing. In the light of the study DETR and the CAA will also consider the scope for developing unambiguous definitions for seat dimensions for use in informing passengers of the seat size and space available on a flight.

  Contaminated Land (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the amount of contaminated land in Lancashire. [154205]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department has made no estimates of the amount of contaminated land in particular parts of the country.

  Commercial Property Leases
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the working party reviewing the voluntary code of practice on commercial property leases is due to report to him; and what procedure is in place to review its recommendations. [154225]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has asked the Commercial Leases Group to let him have its final proposals by the end of March. We shall then be looking closely at the proposals to see that they will result in tenants having more choice and better information about leasing options. We will consider the way forward in the light of the Group's final proposals.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the working party reviewing the voluntary code of practice on commercial property leases covers all categories of commercial tenant. [154226]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Commercial Leases Group, which is reviewing the property industry's 1995 Code of Practice, consists of most of the organisations which drew up the original Code, together with additional bodies representing occupiers and small businesses. These bodies embrace all categories of commercial tenant in the main property sectors.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Strategic Rail Authority, (b) Railtrack and (c) the train operating companies on new rolling stock.[153911]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The Deputy Prime Minister recently met Sir Alastair Morton, the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, and rolling stock manufacturers to discuss the delivery and reliability of new rolling stock.

  Cycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his
  26W
  answer of 7 March 2001,Official Report column 253W, on cycling, when the Government expect to meet their interim target under the National Cycling Strategy for doubling the number of cyclists from 1996 levels. [154411]

  Mr. Hill
  Progress will depend on a number of factors. However, given the greatly increased funding which the Government have made available for local transport, the encouragement to cycling which we have given in our guidance on Local Transport Plans, and the generally positive response to this guidance by local authorities, I am hopeful that cycle trips in England will double from their 1996 level by 2005 or 2006.

  Airport Operators Association Environmental Guidance Manual
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will circulate the Airport Operators Association environmental guidance manual to airports in the UK. [154526]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Airport Operators Association (AOA) environmental guidance manual is a private publication. Circulation is a matter for the AOA. I understand that AOA members have been sent copies of the manual.

  Aviation Personnel (Drug Tests)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce alcohol and drug testing for aviation personnel; and if he will make a statement.[154540]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Queen's speech on 6 December announced the Government's intention to draft a Safety Bill. We will use this opportunity to introduce a prescribed blood/alcohol limit for safety critical personnel in aviation, and to take permissive powers to allow testing for drugs.

  We propose to set a 20 milligram per 100 millilitre blood/alcohol limit for aircraft crew, air traffic controllers and aircraft maintenance engineers, while also granting to the police the necessary powers to test suspected offenders. This limit is in line with an agreed Joint Aviation Requirement for aircrew and will apply equally to safety critical aviation personnel in the commercial and leisure sectors, and to those people flying or working with aircraft in their free time. It also reflects the positive responses to a Government consultation paper issued in July 1996, which proposed this limit.

  It will continue to be a criminal offence to be engaged in an aviation related activity while unfit though the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is our belief that these proposals will further enhance safety in our skies.

  Housing Renewal Grants
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take forward reform of the private sector housing renewal grants regime. [154541]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has today published a consultation paper outlining how we propose to proceed with our reforms of the legislation governing housing renewal by local authorities.
  27W
  The reforms will replace many of the detailed restrictions that govern local authorities' activity, with a general power which will be subject to only limited constraints. In doing so, we aim to enable authorities to take a more strategic approach to housing renewal, respond more effectively to the housing and market conditions in their areas and to reinforce homeowners' own responsibilities towards the upkeep of their homes. Homeowners and disabled people will benefit from a wider choice of support to carry out essential repairs and adaptations to their homes.

  Responses are invited by 29 June 2001. Subject to the outcome of the consultation and the approval of the Regulatory Reform Bill now before Parliament, we plan to implement the reforms through a Regulatory Reform Order.

  Green Policies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department's Greening Operations Annual report for 1999–2000 will be published. [154771]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today published the DETR Green Minister's Annual Report 2000. This incorporates Greening Operations data for the year 1999–2000 but also covers other aspects of my responsibilities for greening government and promoting sustainable development within the Department. The Report has been independently verified.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his proposals for making the United Kingdom a showcase for environmental protection and environmental technologies. [154197]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply

  The Government's aim is for the UK to become a leading player in the new markets for green energy and products, waste minimisation, recycling and re-use. The Prime Minister's speeches in October and March, the White Paper "Opportunity for all" and Budget 2001 further develop and take forward this new approach through a range of existing and new measures to boost UK industrial and research capabilities and capacity in cutting-edge sustainable technologies and know-how. Recent announcements include:
  A total of over £250 million over the next three years for investment in renewable energy and renewable R&D to help industry meet our target of 10 per cent. of our electricity to come from renewable energy sources by 2010. Moreover, with the introduction of the Renewables Obligation, the Government will be aiming to provide an assured market for renewable energy over the next 25 years. Business can also take advantage of the levy exemptions, which apply to electricity sourced from new renewable sources or from quality assured combined heat and power plants.
  The ground breaking 'Carbon Trust' which brings together—for the first time in Europe—a fully integrated programme of incentives worth up to £150 million annually on low carbon technology and business energy efficiency
  The Budget measures following the Government's 'Green Fuel Challenge', including the 20p per litre reduction in fuel duty on bio-diesel; the 9p per kilo reduction for road fuel gases; and the pilot projects and duty reductions or exemptions for bio-ethanol, methanol and bio-gas
  28W
  A proposal to consult on setting up a 'Green Technology Challenge (GTC)', with the intention of offering enhanced first-year capital allowances for further environmental objectives and new technologies. The GTC will also be designed to complement the steps being taken as a result of the 'Green Fuels Challenge'.

  This investment represents a significant commitment to a sustainable future and will help open up substantial commercial opportunities for Britain.

  M25
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what basis sites were selected for the roadshow presentations on the London Orbital Study. [153960]

  Mr. Hill
  Sites for the Orbit study mobile exhibitions were identified by the study consultants and approved by the Steering Group for the study. The consultants were asked to identify ten sites which would provide broad coverage of the M25 transport corridor, be accessible to people living in the corridor, and enable M25 users to visit with ease. The final list of sites was influenced by availability and by the ease of obtaining necessary permissions.

  Woodland
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional action he has taken to provide specific funds in the last 12 months for(a) woodland creation and (b) to reverse the fragmentation of ancient woodland. [153682]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the past 12 months, we have announced that, through the England rural development programme, we will provide about £70 million in planting grants under the woodland grant scheme to encourage the creation of new woodland over the next seven years and about £77 million in payments under the farm woodland premium scheme. In addition, we have given the commission an additional £9.4 million from the capital modernisation fund to create 1,000 hectares of new woodland in the community forests.

  We also launched the JIGSAW challenge last year, a £5 million initiative which offers grants to encourage landowners to establish new woodland which will connect isolated areas of ancient semi-natural woodland. Reversing the fragmentation of existing native woodland is one of the aims of our England forestry strategy.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions what plans he has through the felling licence system to restrict further the removal of young trees, shrubs and undergrowth from areas of ancient woodland; and if he will make a statement. [153681]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to change the felling licence regulations to restrict the removal of young trees, shrubs and undergrowth from areas of ancient woodland. Protecting and enhancing these woodlands is, however, a key aim of the England forestry strategy. The forestry forum, which I set up to oversee the implementation of the strategy, has recently made several recommendations
  29W
  for improving the protection of ancient woodland, and we are currently considering what further action needs to be taken.

TREASURY

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much revenue CCTA have raised through commissions paid on sales facilitated by(a) G-cat and (b) S-cat in each of the last five financial years; [151535]

  (2) what proportion of orders placed through(a) G-cat and (b) S-cat have exceeded £200,000 in the last year for which figures are available. [151534]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answers 27 February 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Bob Assirati to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 15 March 2001]:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions (Ref: 151534, 151535) about GCat and S-CAT. The information you have requested is given below.

  For the year up to 31 December 2000, approximately 0.25% of GCat orders (1 in every 400) exceeded £200k in value. The equivalent figure for S-CAT was 3.5% (1 in 33).

  The revenues received by CCTA on sales through these schemes for each of the last 5 years is as follows:

  £000

  >Financial year

  Gcat

  S-CAT

  2000–01 (up to 31/12/2000)

  855.8

  1,471

  1999–2000

  1,248

  1,285.5

  1998–99

  990.7

  563

  1997–98

  561.8

  20.3

  1996–97

  244.8

  0

  As a self-funding executive agency it is a requirement that the total costs of procurement and contract management are recovered in full. The term revenue in this context relates to the charges levied to contractors to cover these expenses.

  Due to the recent variations in volume of business, a revenue review of GCat and S-CAT is being conducted.

  General information about income and expenditure related to the services provided by CCTA, including catalogue services, was set out in their last Annual Report and Accounts for 1999–2000, copies of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the largest contract is that has been placed through(a) G-cat and (b) S-cat; and if he will make a statement; [151578]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefits that Government Departments realise through the use of G-cat and S-cat; [151579]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the compliance of G-cat and S-cat with EC tendering legislation. [151580]
  30W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Bob Assirati to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 15 March 2001:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your 3 Parliamentary Questions about GCat and S-CAT (Ref: 151578, 151579, 151580). The information you have requested is given below.

  You asked what assessment has been made of the compliance of GCat and S-CAT with EC tendering legislation. An assessment of compliance with the EC procurement rules was made by CCTA before the GCat and S-CAT framework contracts were awarded. Following the establishment of the Office of Government Commerce (with effect from 1 April 2000) further reviews have confirmed the view that both GCat and S-CAT are compliant with the EC rules.

  You also asked what the largest contracts are which have been placed through GCat and S-CAT respectively and if a statement can be made. It is a feature of these schemes that customer organisations contract direct with their selected prime contractors. It is not therefore appropriate for CCTA to give details regarding individual contracts to which we are not party as there may be commercial or contractual sensitivities of which we are unaware. However, in terms of contractual value, the largest individual customer orders placed so far through GCat and S-CAT are valued at £2.5 million and £17.8 million respectively.

  Finally you asked what assessments have been made of the benefits that Government departments realise through the use of GCat and S-CAT. In general the benefits gained from these framework contracts are:

  Compliance with EC procurement procedures

  Reduced procurement timescales and costs

  Economy-of-scale pricing

  Simplified ordering with e-procurement facilities

  Sound contractual protection

  The quantification and aggregation of these benefits is not a straightforward process as different customers derive differing degrees of benefit according to their own circumstances. However CCTA have estimated that savings during the first 5 years from GCat and S-CAT are approximately £30 million and £3.5 million respectively. The 1999 NAO Report on Modernising Procurement contains further detailed analysis of the CGat efficiency savings.

  Debt
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the UK joint ministerial committee on poverty has to consider debt. [153075]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Tackling financial exclusion is an essential part of the Government's strategy to tackle social exclusion. Details of the Government's progress with the agenda to reduce financial exclusion are set out in the "National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Audit report", which was published in January. A copy of this document can be found in the Library.

  The Government are also keen that individuals do not take on debts that they cannot afford to repay. That is why the DTI has set up an industry taskforce specifically to address concerns about increasing levels of debt.

  The joint ministerial committee on poverty was established to consider joint or co-ordinated action by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to tackle poverty and social exclusion and to facilitate exchanging information and sharing best practice.
  31W
  As with all ministerial committees and as laid out in the memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements on the joint ministerial committee, the proceedings of the joint ministerial committee and its sub-committees are confidential.

  Bingo Industry
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was received by his Department in tax duty and VAT in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 from the bingo industry. [153766]

  Mr. Timms
  Duty receipts from bingo can be found in the HM Customs and Excise statistical bulletin "Receipts from Betting, Gaming and Lottery Duties", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Details of the amount of VAT received from the bingo industry are not readily available.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 12 March was; what the Government's voting record at the Council was; and if he will make a statement. [153815]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The Council discussed the wise men's report on regulation of European securities markets. The UK shares the analysis of the benefits of a competing single market in securities and the desire to speed up and prioritise completion of a single market in financial services. Welcoming the report, ECOFIN commissioned further work with the aim of sending conclusions to the Stockholm European Council.

  The Council agreed a joint Council-Commission report on "The Contribution of Public Finances to Growth and Employment", which will be submitted to the Stockholm European Council. A short list of 12 structural performance indicators was also adopted from the list of 35 that the Council and the Commission agreed should be used in the synthesis report. Indicators enable member states to measure progress on structural reform, and the short list will give extra focus and momentum to the exercise.

  The Council also agreed to forward to the Stockholm European Council: the Commission synthesis report; the Economic Policy Committee's annual report on structural reform; a report by the European Investment bank on the Innovation 2000 initiative; the presidency key issues paper for the broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs); and the Commission report on the implementation on the BEPGs.

  The Council recommended that the European Parliament give discharge to the Commission in respect of its implementation of the 1999 budget, and welcomed the Commission's proposal for an annual action plan to reduce errors.

  The Council agreed priorities for the 2002 budget, with emphasis on compliance with the budgetary ceilings agreed at the Berlin European Council.
  32W
  The Council discussed the Galileo project to inform further discussion at the April Transport Council.

  The Council examined and agreed opinions on stability reports for Belgium Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal.

  The Commission was asked to speed up its consideration of venture capital projects such as the UK regional venture capital schemes.

  No votes were taken during the course of the meeting.

  Church Building Work (VAT)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce the lower level of value added tax for church building work; and if he will make a statement. [154007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced in the Budget that they would be introducing a UK-wide grant scheme to help congregations with the cost of repairs and maintenance to listed buildings that are used as places of worship. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be consulting on the details but the effect will be to reduce VAT costs to 5 per cent. on new work undertaken from 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his proposals for a lower level of value added tax will apply to all buildings designated as places of worship irrespective of denomination and religion; and if he will make a statement. [154006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new grant scheme announced in the Budget for listed buildings that are used as places of worship will help all denominations and religions with the cost of VAT on repairs and maintenance.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of fraud in the Child Care Tax Credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit. [154216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: There is as yet no statistically valid data available from which a meaningful estimate of the level of fraud in the recently introduced Child Care Tax Credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit can be made.

  Applicants are required to supply evidence of child care costs from their provider in order to receive Child Care Tax Credit. The Inland Revenue carry out risk assessments of applications based on their experience of fraudulent claims, and can impose financial penalties where fraud is found to have taken place. These checks and sanctions apply to the child care tax credit in the same way as other elements of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are in place to ensure that the child care expenditure covered by the Child Care Tax Credit has actually been incurred by the claimant and continues to be incurred for the duration of the claim. [154217]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Applications for the Working Families and Disabled Person's Tax Credits are subject to risk assessments based on accumulated Inland Revenue and DSS experience.
  33W
  Specialist staff may inquire formally into applications identified as requiring further investigation. Child care providers confirm the level of charges they have agreed with parents and provide information as part of the application that can confirm that the service they provide is eligible for support through the Child Care Tax Credit component of the Working Families and Disabled Person's Tax Credits. WFTC and DPTC awards are based on the information supplied in the application and normally continue for the full 26
  weeks of the award. As with other changes in circumstances, changes in child care arrangements will not normally alter awards.

  Benefits (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of family credit there were in South Shields constituency in 1997; what the average benefit for a(a) full-time and (b) part-time worker was; how many claimants of Working Families Tax Credit there are; and what the average benefit is for a (i) full-time and (ii) part-time worker. [154441]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At May 1997 there were an estimated 1,200 families receiving Family Credit in the South Shields constituency.

  For the other parts of his question I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 13 March 2001, Official Report, column 552W. There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for the analyses of these awards to yield reliable separate estimates of average awards for South Shields; and for the same reason care should be taken when making comparisons over time in estimates of the number of awards.

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154433]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East, 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 785, or 22 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 65 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 65 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 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,589 young people in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency gain valuable skills and experience—791 (50 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, 2,300 families in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency were benefiting from WFTC.
  34W
  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 16,900 in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week 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 10,100 in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  VAT (Motorcycle Helmets)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend VAT exemption to motorcycle helmets. [154428]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Approved motorcycle helmets are already zero-rated.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation he has carried out of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit. [154275]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to him on 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 846W.

  Over 1.1 million families are currently claiming Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), nearly 300,000 more than Family Credit at its peak. These families are now receiving on average £30 a week more than under Family Credit, rising to £35 after the Budget 2001 measures have taken effect.

  As a result of the introduction of the WFTC and other personal tax and benefit changes over this Parliament, by October 2001 a single-earner family on half average earnings and with two young children will be £3,000 a year better off than under the 1997 system of tax and benefits.

  Minimum Wage (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) male and (b) female workers in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency receive the national minimum wage; and how many workers in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency will benefit from the forthcoming uprating of the national minimum wage. [154434]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 19 March 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of male workers and female workers in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency who receive the national minimum wage (NMW) and the number who will benefit from the uprating of the NMW (154434). I am replying in his absence.

  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, disaggregated by gender. These estimates are based on an improved methodology
  35W
  using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. These estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/ nmw_lowpay_tables.asp.

  The new methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the area requested.

  Overseas Earnings
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the UK's overseas earnings from direct and equity was generated from(a) the United States of America and (b) the EU in the latest year for which figures are available. [153985]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 19 March 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of the UK's overseas earnings from direct and equity that was generated from (a) the United States of America and (b) the EU in the latest year for which figures are available (153985). I am replying in his absence.

  Percentage of net earnings from direct investment overseas by UK companies are shown below for 1999 (the latest year for which figures are available), for the United States of America and the European Union.

  Percentage

  United States of America

  30.7

  European Union

  34.6

  Separate estimates for income from UK holdings of foreign equity by country of issue are not available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the introduction of joint claims for Jobseeker's Allowance. [154774]

  Ms Jowell
  Regulations have been approved by Parliament to introduce joint claims for Jobseeker's Allowance from 19 March 2001.

  Under the new provisions, couples without dependent children wishing to claim Jobseeker's Allowance will have to make a joint claim from 19 March 2001. This will apply where one member or both members of the couple were born after 19 March 1976, covering couples where at least one member is aged 18 to 24 years when the requirement is introduced. Each member of the couple will be required to meet Jobseeker's Allowance conditions and will be required to be available for and actively seek work. They will both receive help to obtain work and will be directed to training programmes or New Deal assistance as appropriate.
  36W
  About 10,000 existing claimants and 27,000 new claims will be covered during the first year.

  A key aim of joint claims for Jobseeker's Allowance is to help tackle the problem of workless households. Joint claims will ensure that both members of unemployed couples without dependants are directly involved in the labour market and do not become dependent on benefits from an early age when they are in a position to find and take work.

  Publications
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost of the printing and production of(a) "From Strength to Strength" and(b) "Schools: Building on Success" was; how many copies of each were produced; and to whom they were distributed. [153277]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: (a) "From Strength to Strength: Re-building the community through voluntary action"

  Printing and productiim—£5,147

  Quantity—5,000 copies

  Distribution—Voluntary sector organisations; other Government Departments.

  Available to the public on request.

  (b) "Building on Success" (main document and summary)

  Printing and production—£ 119,830

  Quantity—60,000 copies (main document) 500,000 copies (summary version)

  Distribution—The main document was sent to schools, chairs of governors and local education authorities. In addition it was distributed to a total of 243 other organisations. These include examination bodies; careers organisations; adult, further, higher education and teacher training institutions; national training organisations; curriculum/subject associations; governor and parent associations; independent and foundation school associations; religious/denominational bodies, trade unions; special education bodies; and others.

  The summary document is available to the public on request.

  Programme Grants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment hew many schools are in receipt of funds in addition to standard spending assessment from(a) education action zones, (b) Excellence in Cities and(c) specialist school status, broken down by local education authority. [154160]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The number of schools in receipt of funds in addition to Standard Spending Assessment from Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities, and Specialist School Status are shown in the table. Some individual schools benefit of course from inclusion in more than one category. From September 2001 the number of secondary schools benefiting under EiC will increase to some 1,000 schools as the programme is implemented in 10 new authorities and within 11 new Excellence Clusters.
  37W

  Numbers 1 of schools in local education authorities in England by Education Action Zones, Specialist School Status and Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities

  Local education authority

  Education Action Zone schools1

  Specialist Schools

  All secondary schools2

  Primary schools in pilot

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  2

  8

  0

  Barnet

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  22

  1

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  16

  1

  0

  0

  Bexley

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  77

  22

  77

  133

  Blackburn and Darwen

  22

  3

  0

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Bolton

  18

  3

  0

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  34

  5

  27

  53

  Brent

  0

  3

  13

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  9

  2

  0

  0

  Bristol, City of

  17

  2

  20

  0

  Bromley

  10

  4

  0

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  7

  0

  0

  Camden

  7

  4

  10

  16

  Cheshire

  19

  5

  0

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cornwall

  30

  9

  0

  0

  Coventry

  17

  5

  0

  0

  Croydon

  9

  1

  7

  0

  Cumbria

  18

  6

  3

  0

  Darlington

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Derby

  23

  2

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  19

  4

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Dudley

  20

  1

  0

  0

  Durham

  42

  12

  0

  0

  Ealing

  0

  3

  13

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  13

  4

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  25

  4

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  62

  16

  0

  0

  Gateshead

  14

  4

  10

  0

  Gloucestershire

  24

  11

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  32

  5

  14

  17

  Hackney

  16

  4

  9

  20

  Halton

  0

  I

  9

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  1

  8

  12

  Hampshire

  16

  6

  0

  0

  Haringey

  11

  1

  11

  27

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  2

  6

  0

  Havering

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Herefordshire

  22

  2

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  33

  2

  9

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  4

  9

  Kent

  18

  10

  6

  0

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  18

  1

  16

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  0

  6

  5

  0

  Knowsley

  7

  2

  11

  33

  Lambeth

  28

  3

  10

  23

  Lancashire

  16

  15

  5

  0

  Leeds

  27

  6

  43

  243

  Leicester

  16

  3

  16

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  32

  0

  13

  66

  38W 39W

  Numbers 1 of schools in local education authorities in England by Education Action Zones, Specialist School Status and Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities

  Local education authority

  Education Action Zone schools1

  Specialist Schools

  All secondary schools2

  Primary schools in pilot

  Lincolnshire

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  72

  6

  33

  60

  Luton

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Manchester

  42

  7

  2

  56

  Medway

  17

  3

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Middlesborough

  19

  0

  11

  0

  Milton Keynes

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  19

  7

  21

  0

  Newham

  27

  3

  15

  58

  Norfolk

  42

  10

  0

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  15

  3

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  North Somerset

  24

  4

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  3

  20

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  25

  12

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  21

  7

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  10

  2

  20

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  14

  7

  0

  0

  Peterborough

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Plymouth

  21

  6

  0

  0

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Reading

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  17

  1

  13

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  3

  14

  0

  Rotherham

  23

  2

  17

  47

  Rutland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Salford

  17

  2

  16

  32

  Sandwell

  15

  3

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  3

  7

  0

  Sheffield

  61

  4

  27

  61

  Shropshire

  21

  1

  0

  0

  Slough

  23

  1

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Somerset

  21

  7

  0

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  3

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  18

  2

  11

  0

  Southampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southend-on-Sea

  17

  1

  0

  0

  Southwark

  24

  0

  13

  23

  St. Helens

  0

  2

  12

  0

  Staffordshire

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  18

  5

  13

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  17

  1

  17

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  21

  3

  17

  0

  Surrey

  0

  10

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Swindon

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Tameside

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Telford and Wrekin

  26

  2

  0

  0

  Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Torbay

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  12

  3

  15

  35

  Trafford

  8

  3

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  15

  3

  0

  0

  Walsall

  0

  2

  7

  0

  Waltham Forest

  21

  2

  16

  16

  Wandsworth

  8

  5

  9

  26

  Warrington

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  0

  5

  0

  0

  West Berkshire

  0

  5

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Westminister

  27

  1

  8

  15

  40W 41W

  Numbers 1 of schools in local education authorities in England by Education Action Zones, Specialist School Status and Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities

  Local education authority

  Education Action Zone schools1

  Specialist Schools

  All secondary schools2

  Primary schools in pilot

  Wigan

  26

  7

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  3

  23

  0

  Wokingham

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  17

  6

  0

  0

  Worcestershire

  0

  5

  0

  0

  York

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Total

  1,732

  536

  787

  1,099

  1Includes both small and large zones

  2 This is the total number of maintained secondary schools in the area. The benefit received from EiC will vary from school to school

  Note:

  The primary schools identified in the table under EiC primary pilot are those benefiting. Not all primary schools in pilot authorities are included in the programme.

  Lytham St. Anne's High Technology College
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcomes of his Department's latest visit to the Lytham St. Anne's High Technology College [153710]

  Jacqui Smith
  The position is being evaluated and I will write to the right hon. Member once a full response is ready.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many registered disabled people have found full-time employment in each of the last three years. [153758]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 19 March 2001:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question concerning how many registered disabled people have found full time employment in each of the last three years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying on his behalf.

  Key Stage 2

  Key Stage 3

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of pupils taking extension tests English

  Maintained

  23,637

  —

  18,185

  20,727

  33,461

  —

  38,483

  39,953

  Independent

  2,889

  —

  2,903

  3,104

  844

  —

  1,067

  1,035

  Mathematics

  Maintained

  20,803

  —

  20,765

  25,736

  2,411

  —

  3,159

  3,661

  Independent

  2,653

  —

  2,957

  3,378

  263

  —

  187

  162

  Science

  Maintained

  7,373

  —

  8,349

  12,124

  13,078

  —

  21,053

  24,961

  Independent

  1,383

  —

  1,964

  2,512

  352

  —

  517

  588

  42W
  Since December 1996, there has not been a Register of Disabled Persons. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995. introduced from December 1996, replaced some previous legislation including the Register of Disabled Persons.

  This Act provides disabled people with wider protection against unlawful discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services. It covers all people with a disability which is substantial and long term and affects normal day to day activities.

  The Employment Service has helped 271,730 people with disabilities to find work, both full and part time, since April 1998. The details for each year are set out below.

  Year

  Number of job entries for people with disabilities

  April 1998 to March 1999

  99,562

  April 1999 to March 2000

  96,996

  April 2000 to December 2000

  75,172

  I hope this is helpful.

  Extension SATs
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils, in how many schools,(a) took and (b) passed the extension SATs papers for more able pupils in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000 at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, broken down by (A) private and (B) state schools. [152544]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The available information for 1997, 1999 and 2000 for England is shown in the table. Due to problems with National Data Collection in 1998, we are unable to provide statistics on the number of extension paper results for that year.
  43W

  Key Stage 2

  Key Stage 3

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of pupils passing extension tests

  English

  Maintained

  387

  —

  336

  306

  3,984

  —

  4,189

  4,458

  Independent

  101

  —

  44

  63

  183

  —

  178

  184

  Mathematics

  Maintained

  702

  —

  1,414

  1,662

  6,621

  —

  179

  173

  Independent

  134

  —

  235

  239

  579

  —

  11

  7

  Science

  Maintained

  304

  —

  274

  411

  2,589

  —

  2,427

  4,243

  Independent

  74

  —

  99

  165

  73

  —

  67

  134

  Number of pupils achieving level 5

  English

  Maintained

  86,951

  —

  129,437

  167,071

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Independent

  5,987

  —

  9,533

  11,838

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mathematics

  Maintained

  99,633

  —

  138,676

  142,975

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Independent

  6,410

  —

  9,647

  9,543

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Science

  Maintained

  103,997

  —

  161,733

  202,871

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Independent

  4,841

  —

  8,757

  10,944

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number of schools with pupils taking extension tests

  English

  Maintained

  4,193

  —

  3,541

  3,992

  1 433

  —

  1,636

  1,743

  Independent

  379

  —

  373

  398

  79

  —

  72

  91

  Mathematics

  Maintained

  4,076

  —

  4,463

  5,221

  354

  —

  409

  473

  Independent

  388

  —

  393

  448

  26

  —

  25

  22

  Science

  Maintained

  1,428

  —

  1,497

  2,014

  821

  —

  1,200

  1,376

  Independent

  202

  —

  244

  285

  37

  —

  47

  59

  Number of schools with pupils passing extension tests

  English

  Maintained

  311

  —

  300

  255

  957

  —

  1,037

  1,052

  Independent

  53

  —

  34

  47

  46

  —

  40

  53

  Mathematics

  Maintained

  511

  —

  1,055

  1,232

  1,412

  —

  102

  95

  Independent

  82

  —

  118

  139

  92

  —

  7

  7

  Science

  Maintained

  154

  —

  171

  279

  580

  —

  686

  967

  Independent

  43

  —

  45

  76

  26

  —

  19

  37

  LEAs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assumption he made in setting the education standard spending assessment for each local education authority about the cost of the servicing and provision of school organisation committees in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [154150]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The increases in Education Standard Spending for 2000–01 and 2001–02 were 5.4 per cent. and 4.8 per cent. respectively: these increases took account of the range of pressures that local education authorities and schools face, including the introduction of school organisation committees. The distribution of these increases among LEAs depends on the factors in the Standard Spending Assessment formula, such as pupil numbers, additional educational needs, and area costs. It is for each local education authority to decide how much of its increase it spends on school organisation committees, taking account of local needs and circumstances.
  44W
  The increases in Education Standard Spending are part of the substantial extra resources that the Government have been able to direct to local authorities. In the three years from 1997, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 per pupil in real terms. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the Year 2000 Spending Review and 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.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of local education authorities which will meet their target allocation of advanced skills teachers. [154162]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: It is predominantly schools which are the driving force behind creating Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) posts, and which make AST appointments. All local education authorities have beet offered funding to meet the target numbers of AST posts in their areas in full. The
  45W
  Government remain confident that over time ASTs will represent between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the teaching workforce.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the public service agreements made with local education authorities and list the factors which each local education authority has identified as inhibiting the achievement of educational targets. [154157]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Local Public Service Agreements have now been concluded with 14 authorities and copies will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. The agreements set out the additional flexibilities we have agreed with the authorities to help them achieve their enhanced education targets. Negotiations are continuing with the six remaining authorities taking part in the pilot scheme of local Public Service Agreements. We expect to conclude agreements with these authorities soon.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what average class sizes were in(a) East Sussex and (b) Eastbourne for (i) secondary and (ii) primary schools, in May 1997 and on the most recent date for which figures are available. [153775]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available data are shown in the following table.

  Average class size in maintained primary and secondary schools in East Sussex local education authority and Eastbourne parliamentary constituency

  1998

  2000

  East Sussex local education authority

  Maintained primary

  28.3

  28.2

  Maintained primary key stage 1

  27.3

  26.1

  Maintained secondary

  21.4

  22.1

  Eastbourne parliamentary constituency

  Maintained primary

  29.9

  29.8

  Maintained primary key stage 1

  29.2

  27.0

  Maintained secondary

  23.4

  24.3

  January 2000 saw a fall in the size of the average junior class in England; and a continuing fall in the size of the average primary class, after rising for a decade. The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. In 2001–02 secondary headteachers will receive an average of £70,000 and primary headteachers £24,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose, including on reducing class sizes if that is their priority.

  By September 2000 there were only 316 infants in classes over 30 in East Sussex compared to 6,433 in January 1998. East Sussex has benefited from over £5 million in grant to enable it to reduce infant class sizes to this extent. In Eastbourne there were 33 infants in classes over 30 in September 2000 compared to 1,637 in January 1998.

  Vacant Teacher Posts
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacant teacher posts there were in schools run by Lancashire education authority in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999,(d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [153157]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in table 42 of Statistics of Education, Teachers, England and Wales, 2000 edition, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Lancashire was split into three local authorities from 1 April 1998: Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.

  Information on vacancies in 2001 is not yet available.

  The number of regular teachers 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 be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost to public funds to date of education action zones. [154151]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The total amount spent so far on the 73 large zones since the first Education Action Zones began operation in September 1998 is £89.7 million. This works out to approximately £100 per pupil per year for every full year a zone has been in operation.

  This funding has led to improvements in the standards of education. In the 25 first round zones which have been running the longest, the proportion of 7-year-olds reaching level 2 in reading, writing and maths has increased by 7, 6 and 8 percentage points respectively since 1998, compared with national increases of 4, 4 and 6 percentage points over the same period. The proportion of 11-year-olds achieving level 4 in English. maths and science has increased by 12, 16 and 20 percentage points respectively, compared with 10, 14 and 16 percentage points nationally.

  Early Retirement
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers, in each local education authority in England and Wales, in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 took early retirement on (i) medical grounds and (ii) as a result of voluntary early retirement schemes. [153294]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: There were 14,300 ill-health and premature retirements in 1995–96. This figure rose to 16,100 in 1996–97, was 16,300 in 1997–98 before declining to 5,100 in 1998–99 and was 5,400 in 1999–2000. The high level of retirements in 1996–97 and 1997–98 were due to teachers anticipating changes that were made to the Teachers Pension Scheme in 1997, which resulted in the decline from 1998–99 onwards.

  Figures of local authority ill-health and premature retirements from the maintained schools sector are contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  New Deal (18 to 24-year-olds)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have started(a) the employment option, (b) the environmental task force option, (c) the voluntary sector option and (d) the full-time education and training option of the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds since implementation, by unit of delivery; and how many left for (i) unsubsidised employment, (ii) other benefits, (iii) other known destinations and (iv) unknown destinations at the latest date for which figures are available. [151573]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: Starts to each of the New Deal options by Unit of Delivery for the period ending December 2000 and, for the same period, destinations on leaving New Deal either directly from an option or after a period on Follow Through, are contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Of those who have left the New Deal having taken part in an option (including leavers from the follow through stage of the programme), 31 per cent. are recorded as having found work. We know that many others will have left the programme for employment without telling the Employment Service—these people are not included in this figure. The most recent Government survey into unknown destinations, published in January 2001, concluded that the known destinations were representative of unknown destinations. Using this evidence we calculate that 46 per cent. of option participants entered work on leaving New Deal. Work is ongoing to improve the recording of option outcomes so that the raw data better reflect true performance. The cumulative figures mask the fact that all Option performance has steadily improved over the last year.

  Qualified Teachers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he gives to LEAs about the employment of teachers qualified in(a) EU and (b) non-EU countries, with particular respect to qualified teacher status; and if he will make a statement. [154311]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities and schools should normally employ teachers who hold Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Overseas trained teachers without QTS may work for up to four months in any one post and up to two years in total without gaining QTS. Teachers from other EEA countries can apply for QTS under EC mutual recognition arrangements, while teachers from non-EEA countries are only able to gain QTS though the employment based Graduate Teacher Programme. My Department is consulting on proposals to allow overseas trained teachers to teach in one school for up to four years without gaining QTS, and to create a tailored Graduate Teacher Programme which meets their needs.

  Absentee Cover
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) on what basis the cost of hiring supply staff will be deducted from the salaries of teachers who do not cover for absent colleagues; [154023]
  48W
  (2) what guidance he has issued on proposals from the employers' organisation relating to financial penalties incurred by teachers not willing to provide cover for absent colleagues. [154024]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: These are matters for local decision, and the National Employers Organisation for School Teachers has issued guidance to local education authorities. My right hon. Friend has nothing to add and has not issued further guidance.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the number of specialist schools to 1,000 by 2004; and if this cost will be met from currently planned expenditure. [154149]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Planned provision for 1000 specialist schools by September 2004 is: £93 million in 2001–02, £106 million in 2002–03 and £127 million in 2003–04. The Green Paper proposes 1000 specialist schools by September 2003. For this the estimated additional cost is £20 million in 2003–04 if all the additional schools by 2003 are designated in that year.

  Selection
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children currently in secondary education have been selected by(a) ability and (b) aptitude (i) in total and (ii) in each local education authority. [154159]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The Department does not hold centrally information on the number of children who are subject to tests of ability or aptitude for admission to secondary school.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on school budgets for 2001–02. [154152]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The climate change levy is broadly revenue neutral. Revenue raised through the levy will finance reductions in employers' National Insurance Contributions and expenditure on energy efficiency measures. The impact of the levy on any sector or business will depend on a number of factors such as employment levels, energy efficiency and the extent to which exempt energy is used. I would expect that as large employers the majority of local authorities will be net gainers from the levy.

  Where particular categories of maintained school are entitled to relief from the levy by virtue of their charitable status, local education authorities are free to reflect this in their school funding formulae if they so wish.

  Failing Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the maintained schools in England designated as(a) failing schools, (b) requiring
  49W
  special measures and (c) having serious weaknesses indicating for each school (i) the parliamentary constituency in which it is situated, (ii) the local education authority in which it is situated and (iii) the number of pupils on roll at the school. [153293]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Schools which have been found by Ofsted to be failing or likely to fail to provide an acceptable standard of education for their pupils require special measures. Schools come in and out of special measures and serious weaknesses on a daily basis. Details are in inspection reports published by the schools themselves and by Ofsted on its website. I shall place a list of schools currently on special measures showing their local education authority and parliamentary constituency in the Library. The Department does not hold a list of schools having serious weaknesses.

  More schools on special measures are being turned around and schools are on special measures for a shorter period. Twenty-seven schools were removed from special measures between September 1993 and May 1997 and 684 schools have been turned around since May 1997. The time taken to turn around school has fallen from 25 months to 18 months.

  School Performance Targets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the(a) number and (b) percentage of maintained schools is in which the headteacher has agreed performance targets with the governing body. [149801]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Education (School Teacher Appraisal) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000 require the governing body to agree objectives with the headteacher by 6 April 2001.

  Our latest information is that 20,923 headteachers in 91 per cent. of maintained schools have or will have agreed objectives with their governing body by 6 April 2001.

  Nursery Provision (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on nursery provision in each year since 1996 in the Borough of Sefton. [151332]

  Ms Hodge
  Table 1 shows the amount of funding available through the Nursery Education Grant, Childcare Grant, European Social Fund and the 0–5 sub-block of the Education Standard Spending Assessment to Sefton local education authority in each year since April 1996.

  Table 2 shows the number of early education places created through Nursery Education Grant and other local education authority resources (including the 0–5 sub-block of Education Standard Spending Assessment). This table also shows the number of new places created using the Childcare Grant.

  From September 1998, all four year olds have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place. From April 2001, Sefton will be able to offer every three year old a nursery education place funded through either Nursery Education Grant or the LEA's own resources.
  50W
  From September 2004, all three year olds in England will be entitled to a free early education place.

  Table 1

  Early years and childcare funding £

  1996–97

  5,570,000

  1997–98

  5,320,124

  1998–99

  7,033,820

  1999–2000

  7,828,881

  2000–01

  8,621,138

  2001–02

  9,215,520

  Table 2

  Early years places

  New childcare places created

  1996–97

  5,414

  —

  1997–98

  5,607

  —

  1998–99

  5,319

  —

  1999–2000

  5,575

  323 (number of children = 612)

  2000–01

  6,027

  1425 (number of children = 731)

  1As at December 2000.

  Early Excellence Centre
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the Early Excellence Centre programme. [153778]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 15 March 2001,Official Report, column 729W.

  Retired People (Employment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policies are for encouraging retired people aged 60 years and over into employment. [153757]

  Ms Hodge
  We are seeking to maximise employment opportunities for all whatever their age and circumstances. Our Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment encourages employers to support an age diverse workforce. Government programmes of training and support to individuals such as New Deal 50+, Work Based Learning for Adults are open to those over 60.

  Wildcat Corporation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 299W, on New Deal, what departmental (a) funds, (b) resources and (c) staff have been made available to Wildcat (i) directly and (ii) via New Deal Task Force. [153685]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: No Departmental funds, resources, or staff have been made directly available to Wildcat Corporation. The New Deal Task Force is a non-departmental public body. Of Task Force's funds, resources and staff, 20 per cent. of one member of staff's time was allocated to Wildcat Corporation for liaison. The New Deal Task Force have paid just over £10,200 to Wildcat from their own resources for consultancy fees and have also met some incidental expenses associated with Wildcat visits. Wildcat staff have also made use of New Deal Task Force
  51W
  office facilities on an informal basis during their visits when needed to support their work. It is not possible to cost these marginal expenses.

  Sure Start (Birkenhead)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have benefited from the Sure Start programme in Birkenhead; how many children he expects to benefit over the duration of the Sure Start programme in Birkenhead; and what the Government expenditure on the Sure Start programme in Birkenhead will be in each year of its operation. [154403]

  Yvette Cooper
  All the 732 children aged under four currently living in the area covered by the North Birkenhead Sure Start programme will benefit from Sure Start. In addition, every new baby born in the area and every family with children under four who moves into the area will also be covered by the programme. Over time, the lessons learned from Sure Start programmes will influence the wider development of services for all children and families, particularly those living in disadvantaged areas.

  The programme was awarded £2.4 million over three years. Annual grants allocated for the first three years are as follows:

  £

  Capital

  Revenue

  2000–01

  266,500

  394,500

  2001–02

  421,000

  665,400

  2002–03

  8,000

  690,700

  Grants for future years will be agreed at a later stage of the programme.A further Sure Start programme in Birkenhead, in the Rock Ferry and New Ferry area, is now in the early planning stages, and is likely to start work in autumn 2001.

  Child Care (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what targets have been set for the provision of extra child care places in Slough; how many extra places have been provided since May 1997; and how many more are planned. [151900]

  Ms Hodge
  We are unable to show statistics on child care places by local authority prior to April 1999.

  Slough Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) set themselves a target to create 795 new child care places in the two years between 1999–2001. Between April 1999 and September 2000, Slough EYDCP has reported the creation of 243 new child care places, providing care for 464 children.

  In addition to the creation of new child care places, from September 1998, all 4-year-olds in Slough have been able to access a free, part-time, early education place. From autumn 2000, Slough has been allocated 340 early education places for 3-year-olds funded through Nursery Education Grant. This increases to 378 places from summer 2001. By September 2004, all 3-year-olds including those living in Slough will have access to a free early education place, some of which will by funded be the local education authority.
  52W
  Slough EYDCP will be proposing targets for the creation of child care places between 2001–04 in the EYDCP plan due to be received by 31 March. We will write again when this has been received.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Department's policies and actions(a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149192]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Staffordshire, Moorlands has received £4,240,057 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997, and in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997 received £935,767.

  In addition, two grants totalling over £56,000 have been made from the new opportunities fund out of school hours child care programme to schools in Staffordshire, Moorlands. The first grant for £6,570 was awarded to Westwood first school to provide for 16 integrated before-school and eight integrated after-school places, for children aged 4 to 9 years old in Leek. The second grant of £50,000 was awarded to Buckingham Nursery School Ltd. This will enable the creation of 48 before-school, 48 after-school and 48 holiday club places, for children aged 5 to 14 years old. Eight schools in the area will benefit.

  Eighteen millennium award winners have been identified from Statffordshire, Moorlands and between them they have received grants totalling £45,672.

  Since 2 May 1997, English Heritage has awarded the following grants: £2,744 for consolidation works at Dieu la Cres Abbey; £15,288 for repair and archaeological investigation at Throwley Old Hall; £11,107 for structural repairs to the Church of St. John the Baptist, Elkstones. In the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997, English Heritage awarded the following grants; £12,046 for structural repairs to St. Bartholomew's Church, Blore Ray.

  Staffordshire, Moorlands district council began a three-year partnership development funding agreement with West Midlands Arts in 1999–2000. They received £17,000 this financial year 2000–01 plus £3,000 development funding towards a review of their arts strategy. In the year 2001–02, they will be awarded £17,500.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Staffordshire and the West Midlands which may have an effect on the Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts (SSA) scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the 3rd Round of the New Opportunities Fund, Stoke on Trent LEA has been allocated £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Birmingham, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Walsall 53W LEAs have also been allocated SSA funding which means a potential inward investment of up to £10.5 million in the West Midlands region for sports and arts facilities in primary schools under this programme.Staffordshire, Moorlands constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund cancer programme. Across the whole of the West Midlands NHS Region. over £11 million will fund seven linear accelerators; five MRI scanners; five trailers for breast screening equipment; nine ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 31 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.By December 2000, over 3,400 teachers (over half) in the Staffordshire LEA had signed up for training as part of the New Opportunities Fund ICT Training for Teachers scheme.The West Midlands Arts Board has received an additional £382, 643 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.Staffordshire Library Authority received an award of £49,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund's 1998–99 programme to support ICT projects in libraries. It is not possible to say precisely what proportion of this funding was spent in the Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency. 1997–98 was the Challenge Fund's first year, no funding was available from this source before 1997.
  Information on the Lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. 149123]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Morecambe and Lunesdale has received £3,023,777 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997.

  In addition, a grant worth over £12,000 has been made from the new opportunities fund out of school hours child care programme. The recipient project, the Bentham community association, will provide for 16 after-school places, and 16 holiday club places for children aged 5 to 11-years-old. The places will be in two primary schools in High Bentham, Lancaster.

  Sixteen millennium award winners have been identified from Morecambe and Lunesdale and between them they have received grants totalling £42,103.

  English Heritage awarded a grant of £5,000 to Lancaster city council towards a development appraisal for the Victoria Pavilion (formerly the Winter Gardens), Morecambe. This is towards a total cost of £14,795 excluding VAT. The final report is awaited and is expected to provide a strategy for future use and development.

  More Music in Morecambe has received three awards from the National Foundation for Youth Music. This was £8,500 for Singing Challenge, £184,000 to repair musical instruments donated to the organisation as part of Youth Music's instrument amnesty and £145,000 for the North Lancashire youth music action zone. The zone will provide a range of music opportunities to young people throughout the north-west.
  54W
  The creative industries have impacted on the area and this is exemplified through the development of initiatives to support professional artists living and working in Morecambe and Lunesdale. There is now an active network of artists within Lunesdale who have benefited from support through Leader II funding in partnership with neighbouring authorities.

  Lancashire Library Authority (which includes Morecambe and Lunesdale libraries) was part of a consortium which received an award of £215.992 from the DCMS/Wolfson public libraries challenge fund's 2000–01 programme to support reader development work in libraries. There were 18 partners in the consortium—North West Libraries Book Promotion Partnership—it is not possible to say what proportion of funding is being spent in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Lancashire which may have an effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport the Arts (SSA) scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the third round of the New Opportunities Fund, Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen LEAs have been allocated £1.75 million and £1.25 million respectively towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  Liverpool, Manchester, Cumbria, Knowsley, Salford, Rochdale, Trafford, Wirral and St. Helens LEAs have also been allocated SSA funding which means a potential inward investment of up to £22 million in the north-west region for sport and arts facilities in primary schools under this programme.
  Morecambe and Lunesdale constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund cancer programme. Across the whole of the North West NHS Region, over £10 million will fund: nine linear accelerators; four MRI scanners; five trailers for breast screening equipment; six ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 27 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  By December 2000, over 2,000 teachers (approximately one in five) in the Lancashire LEA had signed up for training as part of the New Opportunities Fund ICT Training for Teachers scheme.
  The North West Arts Board has received an additional £493,877 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  Creative industries projects involve a collaborative venture between Lancaster and neighbouring Objective II designated areas to establish support services and networking opportunities for creative industries SMEs.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tooting parliamentary constituency, the effect of his Department's policies and actions since 1 May 1997. [149861]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Tooting constituency has releived £5,214,274 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997. This includes one award from the millennium festival totalling £40,000.
  55W
  In addition, the new opportunities fund out of school hours child care programme have made the following grants:
  £283,784 to the Trojans scheme—to create a total of 48 breakfast, 274 after school and 299 holiday places for children aged 4–15 years in the Lambeth, Wandsworth and Kingston area. Nine local schools will benefit. A further grant of £34,750 to the Trojans Scheme—to create a new centre combining the Telferscot and Henry Cavendish primary school sites. The project would provide 80 new, integrated after school and holiday places for children aged 5–11 and those in reception class. The schools served would be Telferscot Primary and Henry Cavendish Primary.
  £23,945 to the Brocklebank Nursery—to create 24 holiday. 24 breakfast and 20 after-school places, for children aged 3—11 in Wandsworth.
  £14,115 to the A&R after school club—this applicant is a voluntary organisation which currently provides an after school and homework club. It employs four part-time staff. The grant will extend the current scheme to 30 places and set up 15 breakfast places and 30 holiday places. Ten of these places will be for integrated child care and learning. The project will cater for children aged 3–11 in the Streatham area. The schools benefiting are Franciscan, Furzedown, Penworthy Street, Leonard's and St. Anselm's RC Primaries.

  The new opportunities fund has also awarded —900,100 to the Tooting healthy living initiative—this is a new project that has six distinct activity areas aimed at targeting health inequalities in the area with a particular focus on the health of ethnic minorities. The fund's out of school hours learning programme has awarded £11,000 to the Wandle primary school—this will make a study centre available to all students to help them complete their homework as well as offering a programme of activities.

  Twenty five millennium award winners have been identified from Tooting and between them they have received grants totalling £93,278.

  Music for Youth, Wandsworth has received £25,350 from the National Foundation for Youth Music Awards Scheme. This grant will enable those young people outside mainstream education to get involved in the national festival in rock and pop music by bringing teachers, students, organisations and musicians together to work towards creating a validated programme of learning in this sector of music. As part of the national festival of music for youth in July 2001, a rock and pop forum will be created, including workshops and performances. Groups will be selected from throughout the UK.

  Wandsworth Library Authority (which includes Tooting libraries) received an award of £50,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson public libraries challenge fund's 1997–98 programme to support ICT projects in libraries. It is not possible to say precisely what proportion of funding was spent in the Tooting constituency.

  From 1 April 1999, Tooting residents under 16 were able to benefit from free admission to the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Imperial War Museum, HMS Belfast, the Cabinet War Rooms, the Natural Maritime Museum and the Museum of London. From 1 April 2000, Tooting residents over 60 were able to gain free admission to most of those.

  Ernest Bevin school in Tooting was awarded specialist sport college status jointly with Southfield community college—both in Wandsworth local education authority.
  56W
  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Greater London which may have an effect on the Tooting constituency. These include:
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts (SSA) scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the third Round of New Opportunities Fund, a number of local education authorities in Greater London have been allocated funding towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. There is therefore a potential inward investment of up £16.75 million in the London region under this programme.
  Tooting residents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund Cancer programme. Across the whole of the London region, over £12 million will fund: 11 linear accelerators; four MRI scanners; ten trailers for breast screening equipment; three ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 30 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  London Arts has received an additional £981,583 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by the lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Initiatives (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [149911]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  A number of initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle.

  35 lottery awards have been made totalling £1,716,879 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997. This includes one award from the millennium festival totalling £25,000.

  In addition, the new opportunities fund cancer care programme awarded £220,605 to the hospice care for Burnley and Pendle—this project will build on current services for cancer patients by providing a 24-hour homecare service. It aims to give carers in Burnley and Pendle support during the night. The fund's out of school hours child-care programme has awarded £27,000 to the Lakeview children's nursery—this grant will create 30 before and 30 after-school places, creating a total of 60 places for children aged 5—14 in a rural area of Lancashire. Ten primary schools within a five-mile radius will benefit from the scheme.

  Seventeen millennium award winners have been identified from Pendle and between them they have received grants totalling £25,218.

  English Heritage grants offered since 1 May 1997 for the Pendle constituency are:

  £000

  Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes Round 1

  Barrowford/Higherford

  40

  Primet Bridge

  40

  Round 2

  St Mary's Nelson

  68

  57W
  Lancashire Library Authority (which includes Pendle libraries) was part of a consortium which received an award of £215,992 from the DCMS/Wolfson public libraries challenge fund's 2000–01 programme to support reader development work in libraries. There were 18 partners in the consortium—North West Libraries Book Promotion Partnership—and it is not possible to say precisely what proportion of funding is being spent in the Pendle constituency.

  Creative industries development is also featuring in the borough championed by North West Heritage Trust, based in Barrowford, who have secured ERDF Objective 2 funds to investigate the feasibility of creating artists studios, an exhibition outlet and support services within the Higherford Mill development. This is a partnership venture together with North West Arts Board and Lancashire county council arts unit. With the SRB programme based in Brierfield there is a further example of cross agency work with a cultural development worker facilitating a programme of arts work managed by the borough, the local community and the Mid Pennine Arts development agency. This programme has recently been awarded national new audiences scheme money, one of only two to the north-west to explore evaluation methods around the arts and social inclusion.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Lancashire that may benefit Pendle. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts (SSA scheme), a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the 3rd Round of the New Opportunities Fund, Lancashire LEA has been allocated £1.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  Liverpool, Manchester, Cumbria, Knowsley, Salford, Rochdale, Trafford, Wirral, St. Helens and Blackburn with Darwen LEAs have also been allocated SSA funding which means a potential inward investment of up to £22 million in the North West region for sports and arts facilities in primary schools under this programme.
  Pendle constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the new opportunities fund cancer programme. Across the whole of the north-west NHS Region over £10 million will fund nine linear accelerators; four MRI scanners, five trailers for breast screening equipment; six ultrasound machines for breast screening and 27 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  The North West Arts Board has received an additional £493,877 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by the lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150552]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Bristol, East has received £7,989,112 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997. This includes one award from the millennium festival totalling £140,000.
  58W
  In addition, three grants, totalling £36,882 have been made from the New Opportunities Fund out-of-school-hours child care programme. These are:
  £25,252 awarded to the Whitehall school Out of School Club. The grant will provide for 24 after-school places and 24 holiday places, for children aged 4 to 11 years old.
  £7,480 to the Dhek Bhal project—this will enable the creation of 10 holiday club places for children in two local primary schools.
  £4,150 to the Brislington neighbourhood centre for 16 holiday places for children in Broomhill infant and junior school.
  32 millennium award winners have been identified from Bristol, East and between them they have received grants totalling £83,930.

  Since 2 May 1997, English Heritage has offered the following grants: £49,000 to the Arnos Vale cemetery for repairs and £190,000 to Temple Meads old station (Clock Tower Yard) for completion of restoration.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Bristol which may have an effect on the Bristol, East constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts (SSA) scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £50 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the third round of the New Opportunities Fund, Bristol LEA has been allocated up to £1.75 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Cornwall, Plymouth, North Somerset and Somerset have also been allocated funding under this programme which means a potential inward investment of up to £9.1 million in the South West region under this programme.
  Bristol, East constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund cancer programme. Across the whole of the South West NHS region over £9 million will fund seven linear accelerators; five MRI scanners; four trailers for breast screening equipment; four ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 22 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  Funding for the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Training for Teachers and School Librarians programme is allocated to all schools in a local education authority area. For City of Bristol LEA the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £1,188,926 under this programme.
  Funding for the ICT Training for Public Librarians is allocated to local authorities. For Bristol library authority the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £117,925 under this programme.
  Bristol library authority was part of a consortium of 11 partners which received an award of £149,645 from the DCMS/Wolfson Fund in 2000 –01 for a project to promote reading. It is not practicable to say what proportion of this funding is being spent in the Bristol, East constituency.
  Bristol library authority also received an award of £24,000 from the Wolfson British History Programme (the part of the DCMS/Wolfson Fund sponsored by The Wolfson Foundation) for a project to enhance history collections and their presentation in 26 libraries. It is not practicable to say what proportion of the funding is being spent in the Bristol, East constituency.
  Bristol Museums and Art Galleries has received £140,000 from the Designated Museums Challenge Fund towards research, storage and documentation projects.
  My Department has also been encouraging additional collaboration between the national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department and their regional counterparts. Complementary to this is the recent exhibition agreement entered into between Bristol Museums and the National Gallery.

  59W
  National Foundation for Youth Music have made four awards in the Bristol area totalling £53,972.
  The South West Arts Board has received an additional £1,778 million from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department by the lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies(Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150714]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has received £1,341,025 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997. This includes one award from the millennium festival totalling £30,000.

  In addition, three grants totalling £44,231 have been made from the new opportunities fund out of school hours child care programme. These are:
  £13,057 to the Kincraig After-School Club—this will provide for 30 after-school places, for children aged 3 to 11-years-old.
  £16,989 to the Holy Family Holiday Playscheme—this will enable the creation of 30 new places for children in three local primary schools.
  £14,185 to the North Shore After-School Club—for 30 after school places for children aged 4 to 14. Three schools in an urban area will be served.

  A grant worth £4,400 has been awarded to the Claremont community school from the fund's out of school hours learning programme. The project will teach children to play imaginative games and encourage learning through art and creativity.

  Residents of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood will benefit from a grant worth £124,437 which has been awarded to Trinity palliative care services under the fund's living with cancer programme. This project will improve the availability of information to carers of cancer patients.

  Two millennium award winners have been identified from Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and between them they have received grants totalling £5,007.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Blackpool which may have an effect on the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency. These are:
  The Space for Sport and the Art (SSA) scheme is making available £130 million, made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the 3rd Round of the New Opportunities Fund, towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Liverpool, Manchester, Cumbria, Knowsley, Salford, Lancashire, Rochdale, Trafford, Wirral, St. Helens and Blackburn with Darwen have been allocated funding under this programme which means a potential inward investment of up to £22 million in the north-west region.
  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund cancer programme. Across the whole of the North West NHS Region over £10 million will fund nine linear accelerators; four MRI
  60W
  scanners; five trailers for breast screening equipment; six ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 27 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  Blackpool Funding for the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Training for Teachers and School Librarians is allocated to all schools in a local education authority area. For Blackpool LEA the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £441,228 under this programme.
  Funding for the ICT Training for Public Librarians is allocated to local authorities. For Blackpool Library Authority the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £37,490 under this programme.
  Blackpool Library Authority was awarded £52,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Fund in 1998–99, and as part of a consortium with other authorities, £215,992 in 2000–01. It is not practicable to say what part of this funding benefits the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency.
  The North West Arts Board has received an additional £493,877 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  The National Theatre Review of major producing theatres will impact on Blackpool Grand Theatre which has been named as a recipient of additional new funding made available by my Department. The allocation to the North West of the £25 million available nationally will he known in March. This is likely to lead to a significant increase in core funding for the theatre.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North-East Derbyshire constituency, the effect on North-East Derbyshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150882]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: North-East Derbyshire has received £3,489,224 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997.

  In addition, the new opportunities fund has made the following grants:
  A grant worth £4,617 has been made to Holmesdale kids club from the fund's out of school hours child care programme. The grant will provide for eight before-school, eight after-school and eight holiday places for children aged 5 to 11-years-old. Three schools in a rural area will benefit.
  A grant worth £21,652 has been made to Dronfield junior school from the fund's out of school hours learning programme. The project will include arts activities ranging from screen-printing and pottery to drama and community music.

  Residents of North-East Derbyshire will benefit from a grant worth £184,114 which has been awarded to a 24-hour crisis prevention and support service under the living with cancer programme. The project will include 24-hour home support services, ensuring speedy patient assessment and support for carers.

  Six millennium award winners have been identified from North-East Derbyshire and between them they have received grants totalling £38,866.

  English Heritage have continued to fund existing commitments in North-East Derbyshire. These are:
  1996–97 to 1998–99 contributed 50 per cent. of salary costs for a Conservation Officer post in North-East Derbyshire district council (£34,500 over three years).

  61W
  Fleet Arts, Belper has been awarded £10,249 from the National Foundation for Youth Music—this project is a new departure for the Nail it Down project, extending it from rock and pop to include new technology, samba and the fusion of the two. Opportunities will be created for performance, running recording sessions and workshops which are informal, focused on the individual and encourage the writing of original music and lyrics.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Derbyshire which may have an effect on the North-East Derbyshire constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and the Arts (SSA) scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the third round of the New Opportunities Fund, Derbyshire LEA has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  Leicester City, the City of Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and the City of Derby have also been allocated funding under this programme which means a potential investment of up to £13.4 million in the East Midlands Region.
  North-East Derbyshire constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund Cancer programme. Across the whole of the Trent NHS Region over £10 million will fund six linear accelerators; five MRI scanners; five trailers for breast screening equipment; five ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 24 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  Derbyshire funding for the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Training for Teachers and School Librarians is allocated to all schools in a local education authority area. For Derbyshire LEA the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £2,467,164 under this programme.
  Funding for ICT Training for Public Librarians is allocated to local authorities. For Derbyshire Library Authority the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £230,510 under this programme.
  Derbyshire Librarl Authority was awarded £90,100 from the DCMS/Wolfson Fund in 1997–98, £101,099 in 1998–99, and £95,000 in 1999–2000. It is not practicable to say what part of this funding benefits the North-East Derbyshire constituency.
  East Midlands Arts has received an additional £1,592,000 from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department from the lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151146]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Norwich, North has received £1,377,917 from the national lottery since 2 May 1997. This includes £31,569,000 for the Norfolk and Norwich millennium project and one award from the millennium festival totalling £20,000.

  In addition, the new opportunities fund has made the following grants:
  Two grants, totalling £16,906 have been made from the fund's out of school hours child care programme. The first was awarded to Barneybees. £8,603 will be used to provide 16 before school
  62W
  and 16 holiday places for children aged 5–7 years old. The schools served will be Angel road first and middle schools. An award of £8,303 to the George White out of school club will enable the creation of 24 after school places for children in the George White middle school.

  Twenty two millennium award winners have been identified from Norwich, North and between them they have received grants totalling £46,401.

  Thorpe St. Andrew School in Norwich, North was awarded specialist sport college status.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of Norwich which may have an effect on the Norwich, North constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and the Art scheme, a £130 million capital programme made up of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from Sport England, the Arts Council of England and the 3rd Round of the New Opportunities Fund, Norfolk LEA has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Essex, Luton and Bedfordshire have also been allocated funding under this programme which means a potential inward investment of up to £7.4 million in the Eastern Region under this programme.
  The Norwich Castle Museum has been allocated £208,000 from the Designated Museums Challenge Fund towards a major documentation project.
  My Department has also been encouraging additional collaboration between the national museums and galleries sponsored by the Department and their regional counterparts. Complementary to this has been the Tate Gallery's formation of strategic relationships with five regional museums and galleries including the Norwich Castle Museum. Supplementing the support of the Heritage Lottery Fund, DCMS will be providing the Tate with an additional £300,000 a year from 2001–02 towards the maintenance of these relationships.
  Norfolk Library Authority was awarded £234,068 from the DCMS/Wolfson Fund in 1999–2000, and, as part of a consortium with other authorities, £149,045 in 2000–01. It is not practicable to say what part of this funding benefits the Norwich, North constituency.
  Funding for the ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Training for Teachers and school librarians is allocated to all schools in a local education authority area. For Norfolk LEA the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £2,636,358 under this programme.
  Funding for ICT Training for Public Librarians is allocated to local authorities. For Norfolk Library Authority the New Opportunities Fund have allocated £202,030 under this programme.
  People's Network programme aims to link every public library in the UK to the internet and the National grid for Learning by 2002. The New Opportunities Fund has allocated £720,935 to Norfolk Library Service under this programme.
  Norwich, North constituents will benefit from equipment to be purchased by the New Opportunities Fund Cancer programme. Across the whole of the Eastern NHS Region over £9 million will fund six linear accelerators; three MRI scanners; nine trailers for breast screening equipment; five ultrasound machines for breast screening; and 23 pieces of x-ray breast screening equipment.
  The National Foundation for Youth Music has awarded £500,000 to the Norfolk Youth Music Action Zone, Keswick Hall Choir.
  East England Arts Board has received an additional £1,225 million from the Arts Council this year to support arts and cultural activity across the region.
  63W
  Grants offered by English Heritage in the Norwich area are:

  Churches

  St. Stephen's Rampant Horse Street, Norwich £244,155

  St. Peter's, The Street, Matlake £22,100 All Saints, Marsham £41,100

  St. Peter and St Paul, Oulton £26,170 Cathedral £227,000

  Secular

  Deanery, The Close, Norwich £11,234

  St. Augustines, St. Augustines Street, Norwich £5,000

  Great Hospital, Bishopsgate, Norwich £45,000

  St. Clement, Colgate, Norwich £11,000

  St. Martin Palace, Norwich £20,100

  St. Margaret de Westwick, St. Benedicts Street, Norwich £43,600

  5 Tombland, Norwich £4,470

  15 Elm Hill, Norwich £1,620

  20 Golden Dog Lane, Norwich £1,865

  3–5 Magdalen Street, Norwich £3,365.

  Information on the national lottery is in accordance with the information supplied to the Department from the lottery distributors for the national lottery awards database.

  Ecclesiastical Heritage
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution his Department makes to the preservation of Britain's ecclesiastical heritage. [153777]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department fully recognises the importance of this country's ecclesiastical heritage, and contributes to its preservation in England through grant in aid to English Heritage, which funds conservation work for places of worship listed Grade I and II. The Heritage lottery fund, too, has contributed substantial sums from the national lottery to repairs and new facilities for historic churches throughout the country. The Department further supports the Churches Conservation Trust's work in caring for historic churches no longer in use for regular worship. We will shortly be introducing a new UK-wide grant scheme for listed places of worship which will substantially increase the amount of public support for repairs to our heritage of fine ecclesiastical buildings.

  Channel 4
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of Channel 4 in a multi-channel broadcasting environment. [153915]

  Janet Anderson
  As the Government made clear in the White Paper "A New Future For Communications", published last December, we will maintain Channel 4 as a public service broadcaster in the multi-channel environment with a remit which complements and provides competition to the BBC and the ITV companies. We will also ensure that Channel 4 continues to provide distinctive and innovative programming.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what payments the Royal Parks Agency has received from the London marathon in each of the last five years. [153962]
  64W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, William Weston, I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, dated March 2001

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the amount the Royal Parks Agency has received from the London Marathon as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.

  The Royal Parks Agency has received the following payments from the London Marathon over the last five years.

  £

  Event fee

  Police costs

  1996

  36,225

  n/a

  1997

  46,808.51

  n/a

  1998

  85,106.38

  n/a

  1999

  140,000

  7,019.57

  2000

  142,800

  7,320

  In addition, in 2000 the Agency received £1,672.35 in respect of reinstatement costs.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budgeted figure was for the proceeds of the auction of the content of the millennium dome; and what figure was achieved. [154235]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) budgeted £2 million after commission but before auctioneer's fees from the sale of the dome's surplus content. Subject to final reconciliation, the auction realised £3.2 million after commission but before fees.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Millennium Commission funding remains to be drawn down by the New Millennium Experience Company; and if he will make a statement. [154238]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has so far drawn down £10 million of the £47 million grant from the Millennium Commission. £37 million remains.

  Canals (Foot and Mouth Disease)
  Mr.Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of British Waterways' canal network on the long-term viability of canal-based tourism operators. [154218]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The decision to close access to all its waterways located in affected and restricted areas from the beginning of the month to help limit the spread of foot and mouth disease was made by British Waterways.
  65W
  The Government have established a taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to consider the implications of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the rural economy. The implications for the canal network (and other waterways) will be within the ambit of this group, which will be considering actions to help those caught up in the crisis and measures to help the rural economy once the outbreak has been eradicated.

  Culture and Creativity
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to widen access to culture and to support the creative talent of people of all ages. [154772]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am tomorrow publishing a Green Paper entitled "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years". The paper looks forward to a future in which individual creative talent is given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; in which artists and cultural institutions are freed from bureaucratic controls; and in which freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture is available to all.

  The Green Paper sets out how the Government seek to secure that future, both through cultural policy initiatives—such as creative partnerships between schools and cultural institutions and free access to national museums and galleries—and through the key role culture and creativity play in the Government's educational and industrial policies.

  Copies of the Green Paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pigs Directive
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to persuade the Commission of the EU to enforce the Pigs Directive (91/630/EEC) in respect of countries that have failed to take action in accordance with it. [154020]

  Mr. Morley
  Where we have hard evidence of a failure to enforce EU welfare rules, we do not hesitate to bring the matter to the attention of the EU Commission. However, while allegations of this kind are made from time to time, the evidence is not usually provided.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 330W, on animal welfare, if a date and agenda have now been set for the next meeting of the interdepartmental group on animal welfare. [154245]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The next meeting of the interdepartmental group on animal welfare is scheduled for early April. The agenda is likely to include items on the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000, WTO and animal welfare and the Review of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [152796]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The headline pay settlement for Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff 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 4.5 per cent.

  2001 Census
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the result was of his review of ethnic minority origin categories for the 2001 census; and what measures he will take to include the Irish in Britain among the categories used for monitoring recruitment and other activities that may benefit from equal opportunities best practice. [153808]

  Mr. Wilson
  There was no review of ethnic minority origin categories for the 2001 census. My Department follows Cabinet Office guidance with respect to the use of ethnic minority origin categories for monitoring purposes. New guidance is expected shortly which will include the Irish in British category. Our ethnic monitoring questionnaire will be updated over the next year and the new categories will be used from April 2002, in line with Cabinet Office guidance.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the expanded plutonium disposition planning group. [154204]

  Mr. Wilson
  There has been no formal expansion of the G8 plutonium disposition planning group (PDPG). However, on 9 March in Brussels, the Russian and US co-chairs of the PDPG gave a briefing on the state of the. plutonium disposition programme to other interested Governments and industry representatives.

  Russia and the US gave presentations on the development of the programme so far, and took questions.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001, Official Report, column 47W, if the paper on fuel leasing to which the United Kingdom is committed under the action points agreed in the meeting of the Plutonium Disposition Planning Group held in Rome on 6 and 7 February has been produced; and if he will place a copy in the Library once it is ready. [154230]

  Mr. Wilson
  A provisional version of the paper on fuel leasing has been produced and is awaiting comments from the rest of the G8. The UK will then revise the paper in the light of these comments.

  It is a document communicated in confidence between Governments.

  Peter Bleach
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a reply to the representations he made to the Indian Government about the imprisonment of Peter Bleach; and if he will make a statement. [153976]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign Secretary has not yet received a reply to his letter of 4 December 2000 to the Indian Government asking for Peter Bleach to be released on the grounds of fair and equal treatment with his co-convicted, who already have been released. He sent a reminder on 29 January. The British High Commissioner in New Delhi has followed up the Foreign Secretary's request with key players in the Indian Government. Baroness Scotland called in the Indian High Commissioner on 7 March to remind him of the Foreign Secretary's request.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts have taken place between Ministers and the President of Syria; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of such contacts. [154330]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Prime Minister had a telephone conversation with the Syrian President on 10 October. The Foreign Secretary has met the Syrian President twice during the past year, on 12 October and 13 June. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), while Northern Ireland Secretary, was invited by the Syrian President to a private meeting on 4 January 2001.

  The UK has good relations with Syria. Contacts with the Syrian President have focused on improving bilateral co-operation and on moving forward the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is in respect of meetings between Ministers and arms dealers. [154329]

  Mr. Wilson
  Meetings between Ministers and people outside government are conducted in accordance with the ministerial code.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of the recent visit by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to Syria(a) whether the visit was initiated by his Department, (b) what briefing arrangements were put in place to ensure discussions held in Syria presented Her Majesty's Government's policy, (c) what the nature was of information obtained during the visit which was passed back to his Department, (d) if the visit was paid for solely out of public funds, (e) what discussions took place prior to the visit involving Lord Levy and (f) if he will list the persons met by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool during his visit. [154405]

  Mr. Wilson
  The recent visit to Syria by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was a private visit made with the knowledge and approval of the Foreign Office. A full briefing was not requested or provided. My right hon. Friend received travel advice from the FCO and spoke to our ambassador in Damascus prior to travelling. In turn, he briefed our ambassador in Damascus on the discussion he had with the Syrian
  68W
  President at a private meeting arranged at short notice. The visit was not paid for from public funds. There were no discussions involving Lord Levy prior to the visit.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2001,Official Report, columns 735–36W, on arms exports, on what dates in 1998, at which locations, and at what levels contacts were made between his Department and MINURSO; which department of the UN told his Department that refurbishment could be considered as neutral; if this decision was confirmed in correspondence; and what specific role MINURSO was understood to play in the monitoring and the refurbishment of guns. [154488]

  Mr. Wilson
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MINURSO officials had regular contacts, at all levels, in the region to discuss Western Sahara during 1998. As a result of contacts between FCO and United Nations officials, FCO officials came to a preliminary view that refurbishment of the guns would not breach the existing ceasefire.

  The United Nations Department of Peace-Keeping Operations in New York told us that refurbishment of the guns could be viewed as neutral. This was not the subject of written correspondence between FCO and United Nations officials. The FCO understood that, in accordance with existing military arrangements between MINURSO and the two parties, MINURSO would be in a position to monitor the procedure of the refurbishment of the Moroccan guns on the ground.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place between his Department and(a) the United Nations and (b) MINURSO regarding the legality of permitting the refurbishment of Moroccan 105 mm guns situated in Western Sahara; on what dates these discussion took place; with which UN Department; at what grades; and in which location. [154489]

  Mr. Wilson
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office and United Nations officials discussed whether or not refurbishment of the Moroccan guns in Western Sahara would be in breach of the UN-sponsored ceasefire. The United Nations Department of Peace-Keeping Operations in New York confirmed to the FCO that refurbishment of the guns would not be in breach of the existing military arrangements between MINURSO and the two parties.

  FCO officials have regular discussions with the United Nations officials on a wide range of issues on Western Sahara and the region. Discussions about the possible refurbishment of Moroccan guns in Western Sahara formed part of these wider discussions during 1998 and 1999. Discussions were between officials at a variety of grades and took place in the region with MINURSO officials and in New York with Department of Peace-Keeping Operations officials.

  President Mugabe (Legal Proceedings)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has
  69W
  made to President Bush regarding the possible immunity from legal proceedings in New York for President Mugabe; and if he will make a statement. [154322]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have made no representations to the US Government on this issue. However, we have regular discussions with the Americans about Zimbabwe. They share our concerns about the situation there.

  Sierra Leone (Select Committee Report)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if written material was prepared for use in briefing(a) the Press and (b) officials, arising from the copy of the draft Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Sierra Leone handed over by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); [154333]

  (2) if the Deputy Head of his Department's News Department annotated a version of the copy of the draft Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Sierra Leone handed over by the hon. Member for Dundee, West; [154325]

  (3) if (a) the Permanent Under-Secretary and (b) the Head of his Department's News Department saw written briefing material for use in briefing (i) the Press and (ii) officials, arising from the copy of the draft Foreign Affairs Select Committee Report on Sierra Leone handed over by the hon. Member for Dundee, West; [154326]

  (4) if (a) the Permanent Under-Secretary at his Department and (b) the Head of his Department's News Department, (c) the Deputy Head of his Department's News Department and (d) the Head of his Department's Africa Department (Equatorial) were briefed on the contents of the draft Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Sierra Leone handed over by the hon. Member for Dundee, West. [154327]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 775W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action Dr. Goldstein took in relation to the 'Zola Budd' manuscript note written on the letter concerning G. P. Hinduja. [154320]

  Mr. Straw
  None. I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to the letter written by Mr. G. P. Hinduja to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) about Mr. Prakash Hinduja.

  Sir Anthony Hammond concluded that this letter was dealt with entirely properly (Cmnd HC287 6.23).

  Asylum Procedures
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which recommendations of the vantagepoint report on asylum procedures(a) have been implemented and (b) are yet to be implemented; which will not be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [151748]
  70W
  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 209W, which in turn referred to the answer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffat) on 29 February 2000, Official Report, 255W.

  The background to the radical overhaul of the asylum decision-making process undertaken by this Government was set out by my right hon. Friend. It was explained that the asylum process project/vantagepoint report was part of the overhaul, but it was never intended that it be viewed in isolation. Indeed, many changes had already been introduced before the report was completed, as part of our strategy to streamline asylum processing as a whole. Thus many improvements had already been made.

  Improvement continues. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate made over 100,000 initial decisions in 2000. The backlog has fallen for 12 consecutive months and we expect this to continue. We remain on course to make further substantial reductions by April 2001.

  Gaming Industry
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deregulate the gaming industry. [154562]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am today publishing a consultation document which sets out proposals for an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—or, if it is enacted, the Government's Regulatory Reform Bill—to change certain aspects of the gaming machine industry. Our consultation document makes three specific proposals that would alter the law contained in the Gaming Act 1968 Act on jackpot and higher-value amusement with prizes machines.

  First, we propose to allow players to use bank notes and electronic smart cards in these machines. Secondly, we propose to allow winnings to be stored in these machines to be used for further plays without the player having to reinsert money into the machine. Finally, we propose to allow these machines to be set so as to pay out winnings in cash (notes or coins), by printing a cheque, by adding credit to the player's smart card, or by means of a credit note or token redeemable by the operator.

  The Government believe that these reforms Will benefit both the industry and its customers. The consultation document asks for comment by 15 June 2001. I am placing copies in the Library.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the absentee rates among police officers for(a) training and (b) sickness in the Essex constabulary in each year from March 1997 to the latest date for which figures are available. [154483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No central collection is made of information about absentee rates for training and Essex police have advised me that they are unable to provide this information.
  71W
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) collect data from forces on police sickness absence. The annual rates of sickness for Essex police from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Number of working days lost through sickness per police officer

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  11.6

  1998–99

  13.4

  1999–2000

  14.6

  Court Visits
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 390W, on court visits, (1) if he will list improprieties he witnessed by members of the legal profession during his visits; [153834]

  (2) if he will give details of the criminal proceedings he observed during the court visits. [153835]

  Mr.Straw
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: I have observed a wide range of proceedings dealt with by criminal courts. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detail of individual cases.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of his Department is on commercial selling of electoral registers to private and commercial organisations; and if he will make a statement. [154454]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 allows regulations to be made restricting the sale and supply of the full electoral register. Section 9 gives effect to a recommendation of the working party on electoral procedures that each individual registered elector should have the option of deciding whether the details that they have provided should be included in the commercially available register by using an opt out box on the registration form. We hope to publish draft regulations for consultation by Easter.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will place a copy of the Central Authority for England and Wales' working paper submitted to the Permanent Bureau for the forthcoming Special Commission to review the operation of the Hague Convention on child abduction in the Library. [154318]

  Jane Kennedy
  Working papers produced in consultation with the entire United Kingdom delegation will be placed in the Library early next week, when the texts have been finalised.

  Magistrates (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a
  72W
  statement on the selection criteria operated by the Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for Stoke-on-Trent in relation to recruiting magistrates, with specific reference to applications from Labour party supporters. [153797]

  Jane Kennedy
  All advisory committees in England and Wales operate the criteria set out in my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's directions for advisory committees on justices of the peace, copies of which are available in the Libraries. The pre-eminent requirement is that a candidate must be personally suitable for appointment, possessing the six key qualities required in a magistrate (good character; understanding and communication; social awareness; maturity and sound temperament; sound judgment; commitment and reliability). As a secondary consideration, in common with his predecessors, the Lord Chancellor requires that each magistrates bench should broadly reflect the community it serves in terms of gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation.

  Political affiliation has been used by successive Lord Chancellors as a proxy for social balance in the lay magistracy and has been endorsed by two Royal Commissions. The Department, by letters dated 7 August 1995 and 17 July 1996, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, referred to the concern of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the political balance in Stoke-on-Trent was not good, with the Labour vote under reflected, and encouraged measures to seek our more Labour voters to become magistrates.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor personally favours the abandonment of using political balance as a proxy for achieving social balance. With this in mind he issued a consultation paper in 1998 "Political Balance in the Lay Magistracy" seeking views. While most respondents favoured removing political affiliation as a balancing factor, no viable alternative was suggested. The Lord Chancellor therefore reluctantly decided in 1999 that political balance would have to remain for the time being, but instructed officials to continue to work on an alternative.

  Later this year pilots will be conducted to ascertain whether or not a combination of social and occupational groupings would be a practical alternative to political balance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2001,Official Report, columns 233—34W, on national insurance numbers, how many spouses of those deceased persons with national insurance numbers are still alive. [153803]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is not available.

  Benefits (Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of children in(a) South Tyneside and (b) South Shields constituency who were receiving Child Benefit in (i) 1997 and
  73W
  (ii) 2001; what the rates of benefit were; and what the average annual income from Child Benefit was in (a) 1997 and (b) 2001 for those areas. [154437]

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

  South Tyneside

  South Shields

  August 1999

  Number of children

  19,810

  10,475

  Average weekly amount per family (£)

  21.17

  21.35

  November 2000

  Number of children

  19,474

  10,358

  Average weekly amount per family (£)

  22.56

  22.67

  Notes:

  1. Figures are from a 100 per cent. extract of the Child Benefit Centre Computer System.

  2. Information from before 1999 is not available on this basis.

  3. The average annual income from Child Benefit is not available.

  4. Average weekly amounts are based on Child Benefit, Guardians Allowance and Child Benefit (Lone Parent). We are not able to split them into the individual components.

  5. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the relevant (ie 1999 or 2000 versions 1 or 2) of the ONS Postcode Directory. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  The rates of Child Benefit were as follows:

  April 1999—£14.40 eldest child and £9.60 subsequent children.

  April 2000—£15.00 eldest child and £10.00 subsequent children.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Jobseeker's Allowance claimants there are in(a) South Tyneside MBC and (b) South Shields constituency; how many there were in May 1997; and how many such claimants were continuous claimants of more than two years. [154442]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Income Support pensioners average weekly income and average weekly amount of Income Support as November 1997

  Number of claimants

  Average weekly amount of imcome(£)

  Average weekly amount of Income Support(£)

  South Tyneside local authority

  6,700

  75.51

  32.73

  South Shields parliamentary constituency

  3,800

  76.10

  31.99

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensioners average weekly income and average weekly amount of MIG as at November 2000

  Number of claimants

  Average weekly amount of income(£)

  Average weekly amount of Income Support(£)

  South Tyneside local authority

  6,800

  90.14

  38.03

  South Shields parliamentary constituency

  3,700

  90.09

  37.20

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  3. Parliamentary constituencies and local authorities have been allocated by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory for each quarter, and represent constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  4. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 and over.

  5. Income is defined as all income and benefits (excluding IS), including income from Partners and dependants, taken into account and disregarded for Income Support purposes.

  6. The average weekly amounts of income quoted in the tables exclude help provided through Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, November 1997 and 2000
  74W

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) recipients in South Shields constituency and South Tyneside metropolitan borough council area by duration—May 1997 and November 2000

  Thousand

  South Shields Central parliamentary constituency

  South Tyneside metropolitan borough council

  May 1997

  All cases

  4.7

  7.3

  Duration two years or more

  1.2

  1.8

  November 2000

  All cases

  3.4

  5.4

  Duration two years or more

  0.5

  0.8

  Notes

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  3. Figures include cases receiving Income-based or Contribution-based JSA and those receiving no benefit and signing for National Insurance Credits only.

  4. As JSA was only introduced in October 1996 the duration figures for May 1997 include those on Unemployment Benefit or Income Support for the unemployed prior to October 1996.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997 and November 2000

  Pensioners (Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) South Tyneside and (b) South Shields constituency were receiving Income Support in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01; and what their average benefit and average income were. [154439]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Compared to when this Government came to office in 1997, the average incomes of pensioners in these constituencies have risen by around £15 weekly. Over 40 per cent. of this increase can be attributed directly to help through the Minimum Income Guarantee. From this April, with the alignment of weekly Minimum Income Guarantee rates at the highest rate, no pensioner need live on less than £92.15 a week.
  75W
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receiving the state pension there are in(a) South Tyneside and (b) South Shields constituency; how many there were in May 1997; and how many of those were aged over 75 years. [154440]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  We will increase basic state pension from April 2001 by £5 for a single person and £8 per couple. The overall costs for Great Britain as a whole will be 1.3 billion. This will benefit over 10 million British pensioners. Among them an estimated 30,400 reside in the South Tyneside local authority and an estimated 16,500 reside in the constituency of South Shields.

  Retirement pensioners in receipt of state pension resident in South Tyneside local authority, South Shields constituency and Great Britain at 30 September 2000

  Total recipients

  75 and under

  Over 75

  Great Britain

  10,185,400

  6,363,400

  3,822,000

  South Tyneside

  30,400

  20,200

  10,300

  South Shields

  16,500

  10,900

  5,600

  Great Britain (March 1997)

  9,838,700

  6,181,700

  3,656,900

  Notes:

  1. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency and district authority by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS.

  2. Great Britain data exclude Overseas and Channel Island pensioners.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Data by local authority or parliamentary constituency are not available prior to September 1999.

  Source:

  Based on a 5 per cent. sample taken from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000 and 31 March 1997.

  Pensions
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Guaranteed Minimum Pensions are payable to women beneficiaries at age 60 years. [154490]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes, Guaranteed Minimum Pensions (GMPs) are payable to women, in their own right, at age 60, but they may be payable earlier to a widow who qualifies for half of her late husband's GMP. In some cases GMPs may be paid later because occupational pension schemes can have a rule which enables payment of the GMP to be postponed, beyond age 60, while an individual remains in employment.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154262]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following campaigns are on-going: Pensions Education, Targeting Fraud and New Deal for Lone Parents. The costs of these are £6.5 million, £4.7 million and £2.5 million, in this financial year.

  Departmental Policies (Paisley, South)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out statistical information relating as
  76W
  directly as possible to the Paisley, South constituency, the effects on Paisley, South of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153762]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Paisley, South since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families lax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Paisley, South 8,436 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Paisley, South the number has reduced from 2,400 to 1,600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Paisley, South from 1,800 to 1,500.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 13,800 older people in Paisley, South have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 13,100 pensioners in Paisley, South will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 4,900 in Paisley, South. 2,700 pensioner families in Paisley, South are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.
  77W
  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [153526]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:
  Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.
  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been math in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to he done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Don Valley since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty, These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Don Valley 11,339 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Don Valley the number has reduced from 2.800 to 1.600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Don Valley from 1,700 to 1,600.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 17,000 older people in Don Valley have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we wi11 spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 16,000 pensioners in Don Valley will benefit from the substantial increases
  78W
  in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,600 in Don Valley. 2,200 pensioner families in Don Valley are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [153563]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Jarrow since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Jarrow 10,439 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Jarrow the number has reduced from 2,900 to 2,200. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Jarrow from 1,600 to 1,500.
  79W
  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, so we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 17,000 older people in Jarrow have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 15,600 pensioners in Jarrow will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,700 in Jarrow. 3,600 pensioner families in Jarrow are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [154175]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all reports". Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Walthamstow since May 1907.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Walthamstow 11,980 families benefit.
  80W
  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Walthamstow the number has reduced from 4,800 to 2,700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Walthamstow from 2,800 to 2,200.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 11,900 older people in Walthamstow have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 11,000 pensioners in Walthamstow will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic state pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,200 in Walthamstow. 3,500 pensioner families in Walthamstow are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she takes to ensure that replies to letters from hon. Members are given within a reasonable period of time; and which Departments have taken over nine months to reply to letters in the last three years. [153967]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  All Departments are working hard to improve their handling of hon. Members' correspondence. For our part, the Cabinet Office has issued new guidance to Departments and is currently working hard on identifying and sharing examples of good practice in handling Members' correspondence.

  The annual Cabinet Office report to Parliament provides information on the total number of late replies sent by Departments (i.e. the number of replies which are not sent within the target time set by Departments). We do not hold information centrally on late replies in any other format. The report for the 2000 calendar year is due to be published before Easter.

DEFENCE

  Defence Budget
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the defence budget, expressed as a percentage of GDP, was in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 1996–97 in the UK, (ii) France, (iii) Germany and (iv) Belgium. [152714]

  Mr. Spellar
  The defence budgets of the countries stated, expressed as a percentage of their GDP, are:

  UK—2.5 per cent. in 2000–01, and 2.9 per cent. in 1996–97;

  France—2.7 per cent. in 2000–01, and 3.0 per cent. in 1996–97;

  Germany—1.5 per cent. in 2000–01, and 1.6 per cent. in 1996–97;

  Belgium—1.4 per cent. in 2000—01, and 1.6 per cent. in 1996—97.

  It should be noted that the figure of 2.5 per cent. for the UK this year reflects the increase in the Defence budget as a result of the Supplementary Estimate laid last month. The previously reported figure was 2.4 per cent.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the level of the defence budget expressed as a percentage of GDP in each of the last four financial years for which figures are available. [152727]

  Mr. Spellar
  The defence budget as a percentage of the GDP for the last four completed financial years is as follows:

  1996–97: 2.9 per cent.

  1997–98: 2.7 per cent.

  1998–99: 2.6 per cent.

  1999–2000: 2.6 per cent.

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British armed forces in Sierra Leone. [152715]

  Mr. Hoon
  British troops are in Sierra Leone to assist the democratically elected Government to establish effective and accountable armed forces. We have between 550 and 600 troops on the ground it Sierra Leone at any time. These are divided into the UK contribution to the international military advisory and training team, soldiers providing the short-term training teams, and a brigade headquarters. In January we deployed a field surgical team to cover the gap in medical cover due to the roulement of UN medical facilities.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited Sierra Leone to inspect the British troops there; and if he will make a statement. [152729]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last visited Sierra Leone on 31 January, accompanied by my hon. Friend, among others. We were both able to see the excellent work of the UK armed forces who were training the Sierra Leone Army. Our forces have made a significant difference to the capability and confidence of the Sierra Leone Army units that have so far gone through the training package.

  Whale Island
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for HMS Excellent and Whale Island. [152716]
  82W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy has conducted a comprehensive study of its training estate to identify the estate necessary for training beyond 2010. HMS Excellent, the training establishment based at Whale Island, is part of that study, but no decision on its future has yet been made.

  Whale Island is also under consideration as a potential site for the relocation of the major part of Commander in Chief Fleet's Headquarters from Northwood.

  Armed Forces (Numbers)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Army to reach its full manning strength. [152717]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army remains committed to achieving full manning by 2005. We recognise this is a challenging target and work is in hand to identify how best to achieve it.

  Procurement (Job Creation)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that have been(a) created and (b) sustained as a result of procurement decisions announced since May 1997. [152719]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of jobs(a) created and (b) sustained as a result of procurement decisions announced since May 1997. [152730]

  Dr. Moonie
  Over 60,000 new contracts are placed each year and the Ministry of Defence does not record the number of jobs created or sustained as a result of each individual procurement decision. It is estimated that the number of UK jobs dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports is approximately 345,000.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in defence policy priorities there have been since the publication of the strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [152720]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no fundamental changes in defence policy priorities since the strategic defence review. The principles and conclusions of the review have proved to be robust.

  But we are not complacent and recognise the need to adapt to a changing world. That is why we recently updated our analysis. The results were published on 7 February in two papers, "Defence Policy 2001" and "Future Strategic Context for Defence".

  Ministerial Meetings (Poland)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his Polish counterpart to discuss the future of NATO. [152721]

  Mr. Hoon
  I had a meeting with Mr. Bronislaw Komorowski, the Polish Defence Minister at last October's NATO Informal Ministerial meeting in Birmingham. Mr. Komorowski fell ill prior to my visit to Poland in February. In his absence I discussed a range
  83W
  of issues, including developments in NATO, with his Deputy Ministers. I met the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr. Wtadystaw Bartoszewski during his visit to the UK on 12 March.

  Deployment
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the changes in the proportion of the armed forces committed to operations since May 1997. [152722]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 May 1997, some 26 per cent. of the trained Army were committed to operations. As at 28 February 2001 this had reduced to 22 per cent. Figures for the Naval Service and RAF have been routinely collected only more recently and information for 1997, therefore, is not available. Currently some 10 per cent. of the Naval Service is deployed on operational tasks and some 10 per cent. of the RAF is committed to operations.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers are deployed abroad, and in which countries. [154313]

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

  Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence establishment in Shoeburyness. [152723]

  Dr. Moonie
  Current plans, as a consequence of the public-private partnership initiative, are that operations at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) range, Shoeburyness, known also as New Ranges, will be carried out by NewDERA under an arrangement which is currently being negotiated. The intention is that NewDERA will have the flexibility to conduct operations on ranges while meeting the needs of the Ministry of Defence and maintaining value for money for the taxpayer. Meanwhile, DERA is continuing to work with SERCo Ltd. to rationalise the New Ranges estate to introduce new businesses which are able to co-exist with continuing range activities. There are currently 10 tenants on the site and this number is expected to increase. Recent new tenants include two from the transport industry. I understand that the hon. Member recently opened the catering training establishment.

  Old Ranges at Shoeburyness was sold in March 2000 to Gladedale Homes Ltd. and the Ministry of Defence has no further interest in the site.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the type-45 destroyer programme is consistent with the smart procurement programme; and if he will make a statement. [152724]

  Dr. Moonie
  The type-45 programme is taking full advantage of the principles of the smart procurement initiative now termed smart acquisition. This is amply demonstrated by:the partnering approach adopted with the Ministry of Defence and a prime contractor in an integrated project team. This is allowing
  84W time previously required for serial evaluation and re-evaluation of work to be removed from the programme and ensures continuous design and development, resulting in a faster completion of work;a robust use of requirements management to ensure affordability with cost of ownership a major factor in equipment selection. The design and manufacture contract contains incentives to reduce costs and the construction method adopted will facilitate competition later in the programme. All these factors will result in cheaper procurement.
  A deliberate choice was made to include significant growth margins in the design, as well as better accommodation for the crew. This means that the ship can be modified to meet emerging future requirements more readily and cheaply

  Warship Building
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on warship building in the UK. [152725]

  Dr. Moonie
  The strategic defence review announced the largest warship-building programme for many years amounting to over 30 major vessels. It remains Government policy that all warships for the Royal Navy will continue to be built in the UK. This commitment, together with the size of our forward programme, offers a platform for UK In Industry to plan ahead and modernise. This in turn will allow them to improve their competitiveness for naval export orders, and in competing for the commercial opportunities that are essential if the existing capacity is to be maintained or enhanced.

  In the last nine months, this Government have placed orders for two survey vessels with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. and announced the company as the preferred bidder for the provision of three offshore patrol vessels; a prime contract for the design and build of the first three type-45 destroyers was placed with BAE Systems Electronics; and we have ordered the design and build of two alternative landing ships logistic from Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Ltd. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has also announced that, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions being negotiated, the BAE Systems Marine yard at Govan will receive an order for an additional two alternative landing ships logistic. These orders and announcements will create or secure several thousand jobs in UK shipyards and their ancillary industries throughout this country.

  Over the next few years, orders will be placed for the follow-on batches of Astute class submarines and type-45 destroyers, and also for the detailed design and build of the future aircraft carriers. Our longer-term plans include the future surface combatant programme to replace the current type-22 and type-23 frigates and a variety of other vessels.

  Iraq (Civilian Casualties)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq following NATO air strikes since 1 January. [152726]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no NATO strikes on Iraq. British and American aircraft enforce the Iraqi no-fly
  85W
  zones under national auspices with the support of regional partners. The patrols are justified in international law as a legitimate response to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis.

  If Saddam Hussein's air defence units attack our aircraft, coalition aircrew are authorised to respond in self-defence. They do so entirely in accordance with international law, attacking those Iragi military facilities that pose an immediate and serious threat to their safety. All responses are proportionate to the threat. The risk of civilian casualties is always a major consideration during the very careful target selection process and only precision guided weapons are used where there is any risk of civilian casualties.

  As the Ministry of Defence has no objective means of verifying Iraqi claims of civilian casualties I am not in a position to provide the information requested.

  Saddam Hussein routinely claims that civilian casualties have been caused as a result of coalition activity over the no-fly zones. It is in his interests to do so and we have learned not to give too much credence to these allegations. We conduct careful battle damage assessment after every incident; this analysis demonstrates in the majority of cases that coalition weapons have hit their intended military target. The Iraqis regularly claim that there have been civilian casualties on days when the coalition has not even patrolled, let alone dropped any ordnance, and they routinely claim that civilians have been killed when the casualties were actually military personnel. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has claimed the coalition was responsible for casualties that were in fact caused by Iraqi air defence weapons

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the European security and defence policy. [152728]

  Consultants

  Operational and retained task requirement

  Current manning—Consultants including those command and staff posts

  Percentage posts filled including consultants in command and staff appoinments

  General Surgeons

  44

  20

  45

  Orthopaedic Surgeons

  28

  11

  39

  General Physicians

  51

  22

  43

  Anaesthetists

  120

  28

  23

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU countries on the planned US National Missile Defence. [152733]

  Mr. Hoon
  I regularly discuss the subject with European counterparts.

  Multinational Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in multinational defence co-operation. [152734]
  86W
  Mr. Hoon
  I have received a number of recent representations from hon. Members concerning the European security and defence policy. I have also received representations from members of the public.

  Chinook Software
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what revisions have been made to Chinook MKII FADEC software since June 1994. [152731]

  Mr. Spellar
  As I explained in my letter of 21 August 1999 to the hon. Member, the only revisions to the Chinook FADEC software since 1994 were the nine software changes introduced as part of the block 1 upgrade later in that year. Two of these changes were potentially the most significant. The first of these was the introduction of a discrete memory to store the position of the engine condition lever (ECL) which was designed to prevent an engine shut down. The second was the fitting of a software filter to screen the speed values of the engine compressor and power turbines, which was designed to prevent an engine run-up.

  However, we know that an engine shut down or run up was not a factor in the Mull of Kintyre accident. Examination of the wreckage showed that both engines were working normally right up until impact, and thus faulty FADEC could not have caused this accident. Indeed, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) concluded that there was no evidence of any technical malfunction that could possibly have caused the crash.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the establishment is for consultants in general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, general medicine and anaesthetics in Defence Medical Services; and what percentage of these posts are filled. [152732]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of consultants against the operational and retained task requirement and the percentage of posts filled as at 1 January 2001, is shown in the table.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with multinational defence co-operation. [152708]

  Mr. Hoon
  Multinational defence co-operation is any arrangement where two or more nations work together to enhance military capability. A Ministry of Defence policy paper on multinational defence co-operation was published on 21 February, outlining the very good progress we are making in this important area of defence business. This document is available in the Library of the House.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects fast jet pilot numbers in the RAF to reach establishment. [152735]

  Mr. Spellar
  Based on current forecasts, it will take some years for pilot numbers in the RAF to be in balance with the requirement. A range of measures have been taken to achieve this but these will inevitably take time to have an effect.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the command structure of the European rapid reaction force. [152736]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European rapid reaction force. There is no plan for the EU to have a permanent military command structure.

  Community Involvement (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the Army's role in the community. [152737]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner),Official Report, columns 1–2.

  Helicopter Squadrons
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future disposition of helicopter squadrons in UK bases. [152709]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only firm plan to change the location of helicopter squadrons in the UK is the relocation of some of the Royal Navy Sea King Anti-Submarine Warfare helicopters from Royal Naval Air Station Prestwick to Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose by April 2002.

  Further changes may take place in the location of Joint Helicopter Command helicopter squadrons as a result of a strategic estate rationalisation study, which is due to report in autumn 2001. Until the study reports, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the outcome.

  Ministerial Meetings (Turkey)
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with his Turkish counterpart to discuss European security. [152718]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last had a meeting with my Turkish counterpart, Mr. Cakmakoğlu, at the NATO Informal Defence Ministers meeting in Birmingham in October last year, and our discussions included European security. Additionally, I expect to visit Turkey next week and to call on Mr. Cakmakoğlu to discuss a range of defence issues.

  Meteor Missile Programme
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Meteor missile programme indicating how many missiles each meteor partner is committed to purchase; what estimate his
  88W
  Department has made of the development costs; and if the timetable and supply of test aircraft has been agreed by all the partner nations. [154163]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Subject to conclusion of a memorandum of understanding with our partner nations, and of satisfactory contractual terms and conditions with Matra BAe Dynamics (MBD) as prime contractor, we hope to be able to place a demonstration and manufacture contract for Meteor in the summer. The total cost of Meteor demonstration is estimated in the region of £600 million.

  I am withholding information on missile numbers under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Missile numbers of our partner nations are also classified, and withheld under the same exemption.

  Time scales of the Meteor trials programme and the provision of the test aircraft to support the programme are currently being negotiated with MBD. The final programme, once agreed with MBD, will be subject to approval by the partner nations.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about military aid to the civil community in respect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153994]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Management of the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in the House on 15 March 2001, Official Report, columns 1199–1226

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the effect of a reduction of 40 planes in the German order of Eurofighter on(a) the unit cost and (b) the in-service date of the aircraft in the UK. [154165]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Germany has not announced any reduction in its commitment to Eurofighter. The memoranda of understanding that underpin the programme contain the principle that any costs resulting from a reduction in quantity by one of the nations shall be met by that nation. The aircraft to meet the in-service date are already in production.

HEALTH

  Patient Representation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library an organisation chart showing the lines of accountability, appointment, communication and authority between the NHS bodies overview and scrutiny committees, patient forums, PALS, independent local advisory forums and the Secretary of State, as set out in clauses 7 to 15 of the Health and Social Care Bill. [148533]
  89W
  Mr. Denham
  The final form of the new system of patient representation, empowerment and scrutiny will not be detailed until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department received the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's review of the abstract presented to the American Association of Immunologists and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology meeting in San Francisco in 1998 by Dr. V. K. Singh on autism and the MMR vaccine; and what the conclusions of this review were. [149343]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The abstract by Dr. V. K. Singh entitled "Positive titers of measles and measles-mumps-rubella ( MMR) antibody are related to myelin basic protein autoantibody in autism", which he had forwarded to the annual meeting of the American Association of Immunologists/Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology held in San Francisco on 22 April 1998, was considered by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI) at its meeting held in October 1998.

  The JCVI concluded that the abstract did not provide any information to alter its views on the safety of MMR vaccine.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what seroconversion rates occur with MMR in relation to(a) measles, (b) mumps and (c) rubella after (i) the first (ii) the second dose. [153674]

  Yvette Cooper
  Taking seroconversion to mean the percentage of children with detectable antibodies against that infection shortly after vaccination, the usual proportion of individuals with detectable antibodies after the first dose of measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine is as follows:

  Measles 95–99 per cent.

  Mumps 90–95 per cent.

  Rubella nearly 100 per cent.

  However, the proportion of children with detectable antibodies against infection declines over time so that just before the age of school entry the proportions are lower. The proportion of children with detectable antibodies some years after MMR correlates much better with the actual efficacy of the vaccines (that is the ability to protect against the disease) and is as follows:

  Measles around 90 per cent.

  Mumps around 85 per cent.

  Rubella around 99 per cent.

  The second dose of MMR vaccine, given just before school entry, boosts the proportions of children with detectable antibody for each of the three diseases to around 99 per cent. for measles and mumps and virtually 100 per cent. for rubella. Although antibody levels do decline after the second dose of MMR vaccine, the vaccine's clinical efficacy against each of the diseases after the second dose is 99–100 per cent. This shows the importance of children receiving both doses of MMR vaccine.

  Bed Numbers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds in NHS hospitals there were in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151522]

  Mr. Denham:
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: The average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight (ie 24 hours) in National Health Service hospitals in England in each year since 1979 is given in the table.

  Year

  Total Number of available beds

  1979

  361,670

  1980

  355,978

  1981

  351,669

  1982

  348,104

  1983

  343,091

  1984

  334,513

  1985

  325,487

  1986

  315,715

  1987–88

  297,341

  1988–89

  282,895

  1989–90

  270,309

  1990–91

  255,479

  1991–92

  242,677

  1992–93

  232,201

  1993–94

  219,476

  1994–95

  211,812

  1995–96

  206,136

  1996–97

  198,848

  1997–98

  193,625

  1998–99

  190,006

  Source:

  SH3/KHO3 Department of Health.

  Information on the numbers of available beds in NHS hospitals is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy—England", which is in the Library. The latest published figures are for the financial year 1999–2000.

  The number of available beds in NHS hospitals has been declining for the past 40 years. However, a special bed census, set up to inform the winter planning process, counted the number of available general and acute and critical care beds on 1 December 1999 and 1 December 2000. A table showing the number of beds in these categories is available in the Library. These figures show an increase of 1,788 in the number of general and acute beds, in the year to December 2000, which indicates that the downward trend in bed numbers in these categories has started to be reversed. As a result of the NHS plan, there will be an extra 7,000 beds, including 2,100 general and acute beds and 5,000 intermediate care beds, by 2003–04.

  Refugee Doctors
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made following the launch of initiatives designed to speed up the process through which refugee doctors find work in the UK. [151839]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already approved the use of funds available within HRD to support initial work on obtaining data on numbers, geographic distribution and training career history of refugee doctors and dentists in the UK.
  91W
  The initiative has been extended to cover refugee nurses and other trained health professionals. A Department of Health Steering Group has been charged with managing, co-ordinating and promoting all aspects of the programme. Working with the many organisations in the field they will ensure that counselling, advice and training is made available to refugee health professionals wishing to use their skills within the National Health Service.

  Dame Lesley Southgate, President of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has agreed to chair the implementation group; £0.5 million has been allocated to fund the programme.

  As a first step in taking the initiative forward, we have commissioned the Refugee Council to set up a database on which details of medically and dentally qualified refugees can be collected.

  We have provided funding to set up a training centre specifically for refugee doctors. This centre is run by a GP in north London who originally came here himself as a refugee from Afghanistan.

  We are discussing with the Jewish Council for Racial Equality (JCORE) the possibility of hosting their Refugee Doctor's Guide on the Department of Health web-page.

  The Steering Group will consider all other bids and initiatives as part of an overall strategy designed to ensure that the NHS benefits from the services of as many trained health professionals as possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average length of time it takes refugee doctors to find work in the UK. [151840]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about refugee doctors is not collected centrally. We do not know, at the moment, how many refugee doctors are in the United Kingdom. As part of the refugee health professional initiative, we have commissioned a database to collect information. Funding of £10,000 has been provided to the voluntary sector for this work, and more is available for its extension to nurses and other trained health professionals.

  Cataract Operations
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the advice given to health authorities in respect of procedures to be followed for the compilation of waiting list figures for cataract operations. [151934]

  (2) if, in the case of a second eye needing a cataract operation, the second eye is listed as a separate event in the compilation of waiting list figures. [151935]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Waiting list information for cataract operations is compiled in the same way as for other types of inpatient hospital treatment. Guidance on compiling waiting list and waiting time figures is contained in the national health service data manual and the NHS data dictionary which are distributed to all NHS trusts and health authorities.

  Where a patient needs to have two separate but linked operations, for example to have cataracts removed from both eyes, they should be treated as a planned admission
  92W
  for the second procedure. Planned admissions are, and have always been, excluded from published waiting list statistics.

  We are aware that some patients are waiting too long for cataract operations and we have made £30 million capital available over two years to tackle this. Hospitals receiving shares of this money will ensure that by 2003 patients will have to, wait no longer than six months from referral to hospital to surgery.

  Physical Activity
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department will take the lead in developing a cross-departmental strategy to promote the health benefits of physical activity; [152525]

  (2) if he will set joint targets with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the promotion of physical activity; [152534]

  (3) what plans he has to appoint a Joint Special Adviser between his Department and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport; [152524]

  (4) what plans he has to (a) encourage physical activity in society and (b) tackle increasing levels of obesity among young people; [152530]

  (5) what plans he has for greater co-operation between his Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on issues relating to (a) public health and (b) physical activity. [152523]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The NHS Plan emphasises that health is a key priority for Government. We are taking action to step up the cross-governmental focus inequalities and public health. This includes close working between the Department and that of my right hon. Friend in areas such as physical activity and obesity. The importance of physical activity is emphasised in the national service framework for coronary heart disease which requires that by April 2001 all national health service bodies working closely with local authorities will have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of the local programme of effective policies on increasing physical activity.

  The Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport work closely together on the public health elements of the new opportunities fund's healthy living centre initiative. Last year the fund provided over £6 million to the Countryside Agency and the British Heart Foundation to run the "Walking, the Way to Health" initiative.

  As part of our on-going collaboration, this department and that of my right hon. Friend will consider the potential for developing joint targets and joint appointments. The inter-ministerial group to improve children's diet and activity, set up by the Minister for Public Health will also consider cross-departmental action to promote the health benefits of exercise, sport and other forms of physical activity and to tackle increasing levels of obesity. The group will assess what is already being done and discuss proposals for future joint working as set out in "A Sporting Future for All: the Government's Plan for Sport".
  93W
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in conjunction with the Department for Education and Employment, has developed a number of initiatives to improve opportunities for children to enjoy high quality physical education and sporting activity in schools and the community.

  Children's Diet and Activity
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will(a) make a statement on the work of the inter-ministerial group to improve children's diet and activity and (b) list the initiatives it has undertaken; [152527]

  (2) if he will list the members of the inter-ministerial group to improve children's diet and activity. [152526]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: The inter-ministerial group to improve children's diet and activity was set up to:
  examine the findings of the national diet and nutrition survey in the light of health implications
  review current Government activity and policies which influence the diets and physical activity levels of children and young people
  consider further opportunities for action to improve the diets and activity patterns of children and young people and improve their short and long-term health.

  The group includes the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Food Standards Agency and the Health Development Agency. Last year, the group discussed diet and nutrition and, in particular, the low levels of fruit and vegetable consumption among children. This led to the development of the national school fruit scheme whereby all 4 to 6-year-olds will receive a free piece of fruit every school day by 2004. The group has also influenced the development of the healthy schools programme and its increased emphasis on diet and nutrition.

  The group will meet shortly to discuss physical activity and sport among children and young people. It will build on existing work on school sport, the national healthy school standard on physical activity and safe routes to school. It will address future opportunities for action in the light of the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his report "Tackling Obesity in England".

  Substance Misuse
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a national strategy for substance misuse in place of separate strategies for alcohol, drug and tobacco misuse. [152666]

  Ms Stuart
  Although there are some significant similarities between treatment and prevention strategies for alcohol, drugs and tobacco, there are also very significant differences in terms of the mortality and morbidity associated with each and their impact on society. We believe therefore that it is more effective to have separate strategies to tackle each under the umbrella of the Government's overarching goals of combating social exclusion, reducing health inequalities and tackling criminality.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost to the health services in Australasia of purchasing beta interferon. [152957]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has made no such assessment.

  Multiple Sclerosis Nurses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the desirability and cost of making the provision of specialist multiple sclerosis nurses mandatory in all NHS trusts. [153383]

  Mr. Denham
  No assessment has been made centrally on the desirability and cost of making the provision of specialist multiple sclerosis nurses mandatory in national health service trusts. This is a local matter for NHS commissioners and providers to determine as part of the provision of neurological services.

  Aricept/Exelon/Reminyl Prescriptions
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities are prescribing(a) Aricept, (b) Exelon and (c) Reminyl to patients on the basis of need. [153140]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made no assessment of the prescribing of Aricept (donepezil), Exelon (rivastigmine) and Reminyl (galantamine).

  In January this year, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance to the National Health Service on the use of these medicines for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Health authorities and NHS trusts will be monitored to ensure they are taking full and proper account of this NICE appraisal.

  NHS Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he and his officials have made of the effect on(a) patient services, (b) procurement costs and (c) IT system suppliers of the time taken between submission of the first draft of full business cases for NHS hospital trust computer systems to NHS regional offices and approval of the final version of full business cases by the NHS executive. [153094]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: No assessment has been made of the effect of the time taken between submission of the first drafts of full business cases (FBCs) for National Health Service hospital trust computer systems to NHS executive regional offices and approval of the final versions of those FBCs by the NHS executive. FBCs are approved as quickly as is consistent with the need to ensure that the proposed investment is affordable and represents value for money to the taxpayer.
  95W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the average time taken between submission of the first draft of full business cases for NHS hospital trust computer systems to NHS regional offices and approval of the final version of full business cases by the NHS executive. [153093]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The Department has approved eight full business cases (FBC) for hospital computer systems where the first draft of the FBC was submitted to the regional offices of the national health service executive on or after December 1998. On average, each of these FBCs was approved four months

  NHS trust

  Type of investment

  Date of submission of first draft of full business case to the regional office

  Date of approval by regional office (and NHS Executive Headquarters where appropriate)

  Time between submission of first draft of FBC and approval of final version

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System

  December 1998/January 1999

  January 1999

  1 month

  Royal Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Integrated Patient Management System

  December 1998/January 1999

  August 1999

  8 months

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Order Comms/Results Reporting and Departmental systems

  January 1999

  February 1999

  1 month

  Bolton Hospital NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System and some departmental systems

  October 1999

  December 1999

  2 Months

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  Picture Archiving and Communication System

  April 2000

  August 2000

  4 Months

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System

  April 2000

  September 2000

  5 months

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Picture Archiving and Communication System

  June 2000

  November2000

  5 months

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  July 2000

  December 2000

  5 months

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) small and (b) large abattoirs of inspection charges; and if he will make a statement on the levying of charges on (i) a per head basis and (ii) a per hour basis. [153268]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: We have accepted the recommendation of the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force (the "Maclean Group") that the current method of charging for meat inspections on an hourly basis should be changed and that all abattoirs and cutting plants should instead be charged the standard (headage/throughput) fees laid down in the European Union Charges Directive or their actual inspection costs where these are lower.

  The Statutory Instrument (SI) giving effect (in England) to this recommendation—The Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001—was laid before Parliament on 9 March 2001 and, subject to parliamentary approval, will come into force on 2 April 2001. (Similar legislation is being made in Wales and Scotland).

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment accompanying the SI gives examples of the impact of these changes on the level of meat inspection charges incurred by certain abattoirs. For example, a small plant (100 livestock units
  96W
  after the submission of the first draft of the FBC to the regional office. Details of the schemes concerned are shown in the table.

  The regional offices of the NHS executive have a dual role. They are responsible for helping NHS trusts to develop their business cases for investment in computer systems. They are also responsible for approving the business case, working jointly with NHS executive headquarters as necessary. Where several months elapse between submission of the first draft of the FBC and approval of the final version, much of this time is likely to be taken up by the development of the FBC rather than the formal process of approval.

  per annum) would see its annual inspection charges fall from £3,500 to £200. And a medium-sized plant (16,300 livestock units per annum) plant would see its annual charges fall from £ 107,200 to £49,200. A number of plants with very large annual throughputs will, however, continue to be charged their actual inspection costs (calculated on a per hour basis) since these will be lower than the charge calculated on a throughput basis.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abattoirs there were in(a) the UK and (b) the region in which the Lewes constituency is located in every year since 1979. [153266]

  Ms Stuart
  The table gives the number of licensed red meat and licensed poultry meat abattoirs from 1979 to 2000, where available, in the United Kingdom and the county of East Sussex, which includes the Lewes constituency.

  United Kingdom

  East Sussex

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  1979

  1,159

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  1,123

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  1,084

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  1,005

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  1,036

  1115

  —

  —

  1984

  1,024

  1112

  —

  —

  1985

  1,013

  1112

  —

  —

  97W

  United Kingdom

  East Sussex

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  1986

  973

  1106

  —

  —

  1987

  951

  1108

  —

  —

  1988

  929

  1108

  1989

  825

  2118

  —

  —

  1990

  783

  2110

  —

  —

  1991

  726

  119

  —

  —

  1992

  671

  117

  —

  —

  1993

  542

  120

  2

  0

  1994

  527

  165

  2

  2

  1995

  500

  180

  2

  3

  1996

  484

  182

  2

  3

  1997

  472

  171

  1

  3

  1998

  451

  171

  1

  3

  1999

  432

  157

  1

  2

  2000

  420

  144

  1

  2

  1England and Wales

  2Great Britain

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about including Parkinson's Disease on the list of conditions which have exemptions from prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [153499]

  Ms Stuart
  Over the last 12 months we have received seven letters requesting that Parkinson's disease be included in the list of medical conditions conferring exemption from prescription charges. People suffering from Parkinson's disease are entitled to free prescriptions if they are aged 60 or over, or they (or their partner) are receiving Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or tax credits (with their maximum credit reduced by £70, £71 from 10 April, or less per week). They may also claim for help under the national health service low income scheme. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Hepatitis A
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of hepatitis A vaccine per dose is to(a) the NHS and (b) private sector providers. [153677]

  Yvette Cooper
  The average net ingredient cost (NIC) per prescription item for hepatitis A vaccines dispensed in the community in England in 1999 was £22.47. The NIC is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Information is not collected centrally for hepatitis A vaccines dispensed in hospitals or provided by the private sector.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hepatitis A contracted overseas were reported in each of the last three years in the UK. [153676]

  Yvette Cooper
  Reports of laboratory diagnoses of hepatitis A infection from 1998 to 2000 are given in the table. Only a small proportion of these reports included information about travel abroad.
  98W

  Laboratory reports of hepatitis A infection in England and Wales 1998–2000

  Total reports(percentage)

  Total reporting travel abroad(percentage)

  1998

  1,104 (100)

  131 (12)

  1999

  1,391 (100)

  96 (7)

  20001

  1,020 (100)

  79 (8)

  1Provisional data

  Source

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  UK Transplant
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) from whom UK Transplant obtains it medical advice;[153477]

  (2) what plans he has to appoint a medical director for UK Transplant. [153478]

  Mr. Denham
  Medical advice for UK Transplant is obtained from a number of sources. The authority has a number of long-established advisory groups (one for each organ type) which bring together leading clinicians in the field of transplantation from whom advice is sought as needed.

  Additionally, UK Transplant is able to access medical advice from the Department. In the future, the medical director at UK Transplant will be the chief source of advice for the authority, in discussion with colleagues in transplant and related services.

  The appointment of a medical director for UK Transplant is a matter for the special health authority. Mr. Chris Rudge has been appointed and will formally take up the post on 30 April 2001.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to organise his Department's transplant co-ordinator resource; and what role he plans for UK Transplant in this process. [153476]

  Mr. Denham
  Transplant co-ordinators are employed by individual national health service trusts, not by the Department. One of the key recommendations in the quinquennial review report of United Kingdom transplant support service authority (as it was) published in February 2000 was that the special health authority should be given responsibility, among other things, for co-ordination of transplant co-ordinator services on a national basis. UK Transplant has prepared a business case for taking action forward in this area. The business case is currently under consideration within the Department. In the interim, a transplant co-ordinators advisory group has been established by UK Transplant to begin to deliver the recommendations of the review.

  National AIDS Strategy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent progress has been made on the National AIDS Strategy. [153483]

  Yvette Cooper
  The decision to incorporate the development work on an HIV strategy within a single sexual health and HIV strategy for England was
  99W
  announced in May 2000. Work on the integrated strategy is well advanced, and should be completed over the next few months.

  Health Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made by his Department in monitoring the health impact of the health policies of other Government Departments; [153480]

  (2) what progress has been made in including health audit statements in documents outlining Government policy. [153481]

  Yvette Cooper
  As stated in the NHS plan, improving health is a key priority for all Government Departments. Therefore, we are committed to promoting health impact assessment at national, regional and local levels to inform development of policy, strategy, programmes and projects. Methodologies and approaches are being developed, and there is work across Government in a number of areas to support this. A screening checklist has also been developed and has been piloted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  An inter-departmental group is spearheading these activities, which include a number of specific impact assessments. We are examining ways to extend this type of work to cover other areas of Government policy.

  Waiting Lists
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in introducing national guidance for local targets on maximum waiting times for conditions according to their seriousness. [153484]

  Mr. Denham
  When a patient is admitted for treatment it is a decision that must be made by their hospital consultant and must be based on the patient's clinical need and their priority on the waiting list. Under the NHS plan the maximum waiting time for all elective admissions to hospital will be reduced from 18 months today to six months, by the end of 2005. Under the NHS cancer plan, by the end of 2001 there will be a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer. This will be extended to all cancers by the end of 2005.

  Public Health Units
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in promoting co-operation between health and local authorities through public health units. [153482]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS plan gave a commitment to new single integrated public health groups across national health service regional offices and Government offices for the regions by 2002. There is also co-operation through the work of regional public health observatories. The Department is currently considering future roles and structures within the health system in the light of the progressive introduction of primary care trusts. This work is being taken forward in the context of developing relationships between health and local authority partners.
  100W
  Statutory duties of partnership between health bodies and the promotion of health and wellbeing for local populations have been introduced. In the meantime the promotion of co-operation between health and local authority partners has been underpinned by the work of the health improvement programmes development group. The group has been working to develop and re-position health improvement programmes to ensure they are strategic, best placed to implement the NHS plan, aligned to community strategies and supportive of local strategic partnerships.

  Neurological Staff
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about current numbers of
  neurological staff; and if he will make a statement; [153570]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the number of medical training places for neurologists; and if he will make a statement. [153569]

  Mr. Denham
  Information and evidence about future demand for consultants in neurology has been gathered annually by the speciality workforce advisory group (SWAG) from the medical profession and national health service management. We will shortly announce our response to SWAG's recommendations for 2001–02.

  Nurses
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had recently with representatives of higher education over(a) the impact of and (b) future implications to Project 2000 for nurse recruitment. [153794]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Project 2000 nurse education and training is currently being phased out and replaced by a new model of nurse education—as outlined in the Government's "Making a Difference" strategy and United Kingdom Central Council Education Commission report, "Fitness for Practice" in 1999. The Department is working with all key stakeholders—and especially higher education, with which it has a long established partnership—to ensure the effective roll-out of the new model of nurse education to support nurse recruitment.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of nurse consultants with regard to their preceptor responsibility for newly qualified D grade nurses. [153795]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: Guidance issued to the national health service (in Health Service Circular 1999/217) makes it clear that nurse consultants have an important education, training and development role but that this is best targeted to support colleagues who need to develop advanced knowledge and skills. A period of preceptorship for newly qualified D grade nurses is good practice in the NHS and best provided by a more experienced nurse in the same team who has been trained for the role.

  Donepezil
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent on the AD2000 study of the effectiveness of donepezil in each of the years
  101W
  (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001, broken down by (i) the amount spent by individual health authorities on the trial, (ii) the amount allocated to the trial from regional research and development budgets, (iii) the amount allocated from the national research and development extra treatment costs fund and (iv) other NHS costs incurred as a result of the trial. [154072]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  The Department has been sponsoring a trial on the long-term effectiveness of donepezi1 (ARICEPT). The table shows expenditure from the west midlands regional office of the national health service executive and the excess treatment costs budget for this trial.

  £

  West midlands regional office

  Excess treatment costs

  1997–98

  5,000

  —

  1998–99

  122,412

  —

  1999–2000

  245,870

  —

  2000–01

  225,723

  145,000

  2001–02

  224,973

  1200,000

  1Estimate

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process will be used to appoint non-executive directors to the boards of the new primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [153941]

  Ms Stuart
  Non-officer members of primary care trust boards are currently appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Candidates are identified through local recruitment exercises, and from those already serving on other national health service boards. The criteria applied when assessing candidates are listed in the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Regulations for the NHS Appointments Commission have been laid before Parliament and will come into force on 1 April 2001. The commission will be operational from that date and will be responsible for all chair and non-executive appointments to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts. The criteria for appointment will still be determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the commission will be required to report annually on its performance and progress.

  Overseas Recruitment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were recruited from overseas to work in the NHS during the last 12 months. [153759]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures requested are not collected centrally but may be held by individual national health service employers. The United Kingdom Central Council
  102W
  and the General Medical Council (GMC) do, however, collect figures on the number of international nurses and doctors registered in this country.

  Between April 1999 and March 2000, 7,383 nurses, midwives and health visitors were admitted to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting register from abroad, of whom 5,967 were from outside the European Economic Area (EEA).

  In 2000, the GMC issued full registration to 1,185 doctors from within the EEA. Full registration was issued to 1,896 doctors from outside the EEA and 1,967 doctors from outside the EEA were issued limited registration. The GMC report that on average, 5,700 doctors who qualified abroad, are undertaking postgraduate training under limited registration.

  Ski-related Accidents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ski-related accidents have been recorded for the last year for which figures are available; and of those how many relate to accidents which occurred outside the UK. [154331]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures published by the Department of Trade and Industry show that the number of reported ski-related injuries were 15,413 in 1997, 15,214 in 1998, and 8,249 in 1999. It is not known how many of these injuries were sustained outside the United Kingdom.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to grant special payments to haemophilia sufferers who have contracted the hepatitis C infection as a result of treatment with the human derived blood product factor 8. [154221]

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

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the provision of recombinant factor 8 to treat haemophilia patients of all ages. [154220]

  Mr. Denham
  We are continuing to give careful consideration to this issue and will make an announcement in due course.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects and their value at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital which have been authorised since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154487]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on all locally managed capital projects is not collected centrally. The trust receives an annual block capital allocation for this purpose. Major capital projects are approved by the
  103W
  Department through the regional capital programme. Since 1997, the following capital projects for the Royal Shrewsbury hospital have been approved:

  £

  Linear Accelerator (2001ߝ02)1

  1,576,000

  Medical Assessment Unit (1999–2000)2

  1,1000,000

  1Funded by the new opportunities funding initiative, regional office capital programme, Lingen Davies Cancer Relief and the Royal Shrewsbury trusts.

  2Funded by the national accident and emergency modernisation initiative. This will enable the establishment of a medical assessment unit at both the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and the Princess Royal hospital, Telford.

  Additionally, a strategic outline case to vacate the Copthorne South site at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital was approved by the west midlands regional office of the national health service executive in December 2000. The regional office has allocated £8 million of capital moneys in recognition of the priority to fund the reprovision of the ward accommodation on Copthorne South and for the development of education facilities. This now sets the framework for the health economy to develop detailed plans as part of the outline business case requirements.

  MRSA Infections
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the rates of MRSA infection are at(a) St. Peter's hospital, Chertsey and (b) Ashford (Middlesex) hospital; [153754]

  (2) if he will list the hospitals in England that carried out major clean orthopaedic operations, indicating (a) the number of such operations carried out, (b) the number of those treated who contracted MRSA infection while in hospital, (c) the percentage rate of infection and (d) the year to which the statistics relate-ranking the hospitals in descending order of infection rate for the last year for which statistics are available for each hospital; [153950]
  104W
  (3) what were the rates of MRSA infection for major clean orthopaedic operations at (a) St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey and (b) Ashford (Middlesex) hospital in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [153949]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding` answer 15 March 2001]: At present the data requested are not available centrally. From April 2001 all acute trusts will be required to collate data on methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections and the information will be published from April 2002. Work is under way to develop a national surveillance system for surgical site infections focusing initially on orthopaedic surgery.

  Aggregate data on numbers of incidents of MRSA voluntarily submitted by trusts for specialist microbiological tests and data for the last year are given in the table. These data are routinely available on a regional basis only Data on Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias (blood infections) showing the proportion resistant to methicillin in England and Wales are published quarterly by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the Communicable Disease Report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Incidents of MRSA—2000

  Number

  Eastern

  60

  London

  170

  Northern and Yorkshire

  70

  North West

  90

  South East

  100

  South West

  10

  Trent

  30

  West Midlands

  50

  Wales

  40

  Total

  70

  Notes:

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

  2. Because of the criteria for reporting incidents to the PHSL these figures cannot be used as a reliable estimate of the total number of cases of MRSA.

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

Millennium Dome: Sale
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the progress on the sale of the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we are currently conducting market testing prior to launching a new competition. Details of the timetable and process for that competition will be announced as soon as possible after market testing is complete.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify what he means by market testing being conducted "as soon as possible"? Perhaps I may also refer him to two Written Answers he has given; one around a month ago to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and one last week to myself. Both of those Answers stated that the process would be announced "shortly". Can he explain to the House what "shortly" and "as soon as possible" mean in Dome-speak?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process presently under way is that the Government have instructed professional experts to inquire of the market what would be the sensible course to take. Before we embark on another competitive process, it is right that we should be informed by the market's view. As soon as possible after that process has been completed, an announcement will be made.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can I take it that my noble and learned friend has not ruled out the possibility of not selling the Dome at all if an inadequate response is received? Would it then be kept in public hands?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process currently under way will determine what the market wants. Once we know the details of that, we shall take the appropriate course and set up a competition.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, just over three-and-a-half months have now passed since the noble and learned Lord described the Legacy bid as "innovative" and " regenerative". At the time, Mr James told us that the total cost of the project was £834 million. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House the total cost today, including the cost of attempted disposal?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in addition to the costs that have been provided to the New Millennium Experience Company by the lottery, some £7 million have been spent on the competition. That needs to be added to the figure. Apart from that, no additional costs have been incurred.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the cost of the Dome and of the careful regulation of expenditure on election costs, can the Minister tell the House how much will be left in the Labour Party kitty for election expenses after the Prime Minister's undertaking to use the Dome as the first paragraph of his election address?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not quite understand that question; it meandered a little. However, as regards the suggestion that the Dome would form the first paragraph of the Labour Party manifesto, the only sighting of that comment has been in an article in the Daily Telegraph.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the final stages of this process or exercise be conducted with same level of professionalism that we have seen hitherto?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at all stages the process by which the Dome has been marketed has been utterly professional. That means that at no stage has the process involved seeking merely a short-term gain. It has always had at its core the need to meet the long-term interests of regeneration in north Greenwich.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, what are the current running costs of the Dome per day?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the running costs of the Dome, including the pay of the people working in it, are something in excess of £1 million. I apologise; I should have said that those are the costs per month rather than per day. Once it is a question only of maintaining the site, the costs will fall to something in the region of £550,000 per month.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, when questions on this subject are raised, one feels increasingly that one is intruding into a matter of private grief. However, can the Minister say whether, even at this late stage, he can think of a theme for the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that the Dome project should be regarded as a matter for private grief. If the noble Lord were to visit Greenwich and Woolwich, he would see how much that part of London has been regenerated. The London Borough of Greenwich has estimated that, over seven years, some 30,000 new jobs will be created. Far from this being a matter of grief, it is a matter of regeneration. So far as concerns a theme for the Dome, I think that it should be regeneration and the bringing of hope where previously there was only despair.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give me credit because, out of sympathy for him, I have refrained for a long time from asking any questions about the Dome. I intervene now in order to tender a brief word of advice which I hope that he will accept. Will the noble and learned Lord please give urgent consideration to getting rid of this appalling thing as quickly as possible? It represents a load of shame on almost everyone who has been involved in it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not regard the Dome project as a "load of shame" as the noble Lord put it. It is something which has brought hope, jobs and regeneration to an area that was previously contaminated.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that recently I tabled a Written Question asking whether the Government's advisers agreed with the statement made by certain property experts who said that the site would be worth more with the Dome demolished than with it still standing? Can he give me an answer to that today?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can recall that Written Question and I believe that it has been answered.
Lord Tebbit: I have not had a reply.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his remarks from a sedentary position.
So far as the Government are concerned, we think that the right course is to keep the Dome. It is a project which has brought regeneration to the area of north Greenwich. In considering what should be done in the future, one should have regard to regeneration, value for money and what is best for the local area.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that a previously contaminated site has been regenerated. As the contamination was extremely serious before anything was done about it, can the Minister give an absolute assurance that, whether the Dome stays there or is demolished, there is no longer any contamination in the soil beneath?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the decontamination has been carried out to a standard commensurate with the expected use of the north Greenwich peninsula. Obviously, at some level there will be contamination, but for the uses envisaged in the planning, the site is safe.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is very easy to criticise a half-done business deal? Does he further agree that noble Lords opposite should save their criticisms for when the deal is completed rather than make them when it is half done?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree.

British Culture: Promotion Overseas
2.43 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote British culture overseas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the British Council is our principal agent for the promotion of British culture overseas. It projects the United Kingdom's creativity, cultural diversity and recent achievements and challenges outmoded stereotypes of the United Kingdom abroad. The council's funding will be increased by 10 per cent over the next three years.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Britain Abroad Task Force and the BBC World Service also promote British culture overseas.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Is she aware that the National Theatre, in which I declare an interest, recently visited Belgrade with a production of "Hamlet", which was supported by the British Council? This was the first visit by an international theatre company to Belgrade since the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and many senior politicians attended the first performance. Does my noble friend agree that visits of this kind not only give great pleasure—which they obviously do—but can help to cement, build and sometimes heal international relationships? Does she further agree that government money spent on visits of this kind is money well spent?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was delighted to join in partnership in relation to this event. It was a hugely successful tour to Belgrade. It has done much for cultural diversity and has demonstrated beyond peradventure how great are the benefits of removing Milosevic.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, during the Second Reading of the International Development Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State for International Development said:
"The British Council, which is a fine body, is the cultural arm of British diplomacy".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/01; col. 241.]
I agree. I also agree that the British Council should be supported in a manner that befits the cultural arm of British diplomacy. Despite the Secretary of State's answer, can the Minister tell the House why the value of contracts between DfID and the British Council has

1153
fallen dramatically from £62 million in 1996–97 to £23.3 million in the last financial year? While the cultural arm of British diplomacy is being amputated, DfID is mutating at an alarming rate. Since 1997 it has grown by 323 staff and its budget by £9 million to £74 million.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, since the Government came into being they have given staunch support to the British Council. It is with great pleasure that we are able to increase the money given to the British Council by 10 per cent. The noble Baroness will know that the Department for International Development has rightly concentrated on the elimination of poverty. This is all funded by public money. We are extremely proud of the record that the Department of International Development has established worldwide. We are also extremely proud of the efforts made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who has led the British Council with great distinction since taking up its chairmanship.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making reference to my tenure of the chairmanship of the British Council, of which I am enormously proud. It is right that in recent times the council has received an increase in funding, for which we are grateful. However, the noble Baroness on the Opposition Benches is also right in saying that we have seen a great down-turn in the contracts we have fulfilled for DfID. The effect of that has been very real. Can the Minister assure the House that the impact of the British Council is considerable in promoting British culture abroad? Given that the impact is so important, does she agree that there should be a continuing increase in the funding of the council and that we can look forward to the Government making that possible in the next spending round?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I endorse what the noble Baroness has said in relation to the considerable contribution made by the British Council to promoting British culture abroad and, indeed, to helping reinforce the benefits of democracy. As a result—due in large part to the noble Baroness's leadership—the council has done increasingly well. I am confident that at the next spending round the council will be able to show that it uses its current budget extraordinarily well and that it will present a strong case for more funding.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the excellent work done by the British Council is very much undermined by the presence of football hooligans abroad?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those who behave badly abroad never bring distinction on to themselves or on to Great Britain. However, we hope that our other talents—which are considerable—will outshine them.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the BBC World Service is also a tremendous ambassador for Britain? Quite apart from the excellence of its broadcasts, its website is one of the best in the world. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the funding of the BBC World Service and its website is secure for years to come?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we were also able to make an increase in relation to the BBC World Service. I agree that it plays a vital role in increasing respect and good will for Britain around the world. It set out to be, and has become, the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting. For many, it will always be the voice of freedom. We are very proud of the BBC World Service and we shall continue to support it.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating the British Council on recently winning the prestigious ARCO international award in Madrid, which is given to the institution that has done most internationally to promote, disseminate and educate in the field of contemporary art? Yet the council has seen a 25 per cent decline in its arts budget over the past five years and begins the next five years on a standstill budget. Can the Minister offer any help in this respect?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in congratulating the British Council. The award to which he refers was extremely well received. The key tool was the British Council's collection of 7,000 works, of which some 5,500 are on show at any one time. In relation to the cut of 25 per cent over the past five years, the British Council has had to reallocate its resources taking into consideration a broad spectrum of points. I understand what the noble Lord says; however, these issues are being addressed energetically and there is a concentration on young artists, which will benefit us all in the long term.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact that in 1995 a conference was held in London under the title "Britain and the World", at which the Foreign Secretary, Mr Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and the then Prime Minister, Mr John Major, all confirmed unequivocally that cultural diplomacy represented the best value for money in presenting Britain to the rest of the world? Has anything happened in the past six years that would allow Mr Cook to think that that is no longer true?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, absolutely not. It is incredibly good value. Britain's creative sector, including music, design and advertising, generates more than £112.5 billion each year and employs more than 3.3 million people. It is growing faster than the economy as a whole: in 1997–98 it was growing at 16 per cent a year. Exports total £10.3 billion. It is a very vibrant sector, of which we are rightly and justly proud.

Rate Relief: Rural Public Houses
2.53 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to extend mandatory rate relief to village and rural public houses on the same basis as village post offices and stores.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have today presented a Bill in the Commons to provide 50 per cent mandatory rate relief to all village food shops. They have also announced that they intend to extend this relief, by means of secondary legislation, to sole village pubs and petrol filling stations. The mandatory relief will be available to food shops with rateable values up to £6,000, the same as that currently available to sole post offices and general stores. It will be available to sole village pubs and petrol filling stations with rateable values up to £9,000. In order to assist farmers to diversify, the Bill also provides 50 per cent mandatory rate relief for five years for new small-scale non-agricultural enterprises on farms.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful and welcome Answer. I seem to be timing my questions rather well this month. Is it true that the Bill removes the proposed restrictions on the kind of pub that will receive relief, so that it will be available to all rural pubs no matter who owns them or whether they have particular resources which make them a cultural centre? A pub is a pub, is a pub—and they are all worth supporting.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord on his knowledge of pubs—although I suspect that most British pubs like to differentiate themselves a little from each other. As regards the changes, we have not pursued the definition "singly owned" in the Green Paper; in order to qualify, however, a pub must be the sole pub in the community.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that the rate relief will be funded wholly by the Government and will not fall on local authorities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the mandatory rate relief to which I have referred will be fully funded. Under the existing scheme and under the scheme that is proposed, local authorities have further abilities to top up the funding to 100 per cent relief. In that situation the Government would fund 75 per cent of the top-up or discretionary relief.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, are the Government doing more to help farmers with diversification through access to broadband data transmission? ADSL will not be available in country areas for some time. I understand that there is a restriction on having two
1156
receiver dishes. Will the legislation be changed to allow a second dish to be installed so that farmers can diversify as a result of having access to broadband data transmission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have in train a full strategy on the extension of broadband facilities which will include provision in rural areas. The number of dishes will be determined on the basis of local planning decisions. If the noble Lord is suggesting that a separate dish would be necessary for the part of a business that would be diversified, the particular circumstance would need to be taken into account. There is no primary legislation covering such matters.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the measures for mandatory rate relief for local food stores and petrol stations are to succeed, it is equally important to tighten up on planning permissions for new supermarket developments?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. In our new planning guidance we have clearly indicated to local authorities that we shall look hard and with great robustness at any proposals for out-of-town supermarket centres.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the new provisions referred to by the Minister in his original Answer apply in Scotland; or is this a devolved matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a devolved matter in Scotland. These provisions will apply to England and Wales.

Local Elections: Access to the Countryside
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidance they intend to issue to county councils and the electorate about access to the countryside for the purposes of campaigning in the forthcoming local elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, guidance is publicly available and is regularly updated on the website maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/ diseases/default.htm. This includes guidance for the public on countryside activities and visits and on how to prevent the spread of disease. We believe that the guidance is relevant to those who are planning campaigns for the forthcoming elections. Political parties may wish to consult local electoral officers and MAFF guidance about access to the countryside in restricted areas.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was an impressive Answer, but it did not refer to specific guidance to local authorities and the electorate in relation to the

1157
forthcoming county council elections. Does the noble Lord accept that, as we are a matter of days away from nomination day, they have to date received no guidance on the siting of polling stations in disease-affected areas and the possible need for disinfectant and cleansing facilities at those sites, and no guidance on the handling of what could be mass applications for postal votes? Time is short and guidance is essential.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the point that I made in my initial response was that advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mr Jim Scudamore, is generally available for local authorities and, obviously, for local electoral registration officers. As to the other matters, it is clearly the case that local authorities will be expecting to deal with such issues. The Government have now made it much easier for people to acquire both postal and proxy votes. After all, they are now available on demand. Local authorities are expecting to gear up for that process. I am sure that electoral registration officers are fully prepared for that eventuality.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I have telephoned many of my old constituents in Dumfries and Galloway, and others in Cumbria. There is no one in either of those great areas who considers a democratic election during the first week in May, whether local or national, to be anything but ludicrous. At present, there is no possibility of the normal, democratic process of face-to-face meetings, knocking on doors and the opportunity for candidates to put forward their personalities during the election. Indeed, the whole country will feel that the Government are letting us down very badly if they go ahead.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure whether there was a question in the noble Lord's intervention. However, do I now take it that it is the policy of the Official Opposition to suggest that we should be cancelling elections on 3rd May?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell me about postal votes? For example, is the onus upon a person to apply, or will electoral officers notify each person of his or her entitlement to a postal vote? Can the noble Lord tell us how the mechanisms of postal voting are supposed to work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a matter of application. As ever, the Home Office has been extremely diligent in these matters. We are ensuring that there is widespread publicity on postal vote applications. Indeed, I believe that we have provided 1.5 million postal vote leaflets, which are now being distributed through electoral registration officers. We are also working very closely with those officers to ensure that there is a thorough campaign to draw the new postal vote process to the attention of every elector.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have received
1158
any representations from, or on behalf of, the British tourist industry to the effect that delaying the election would in fact send a very damaging signal about the tourist attractiveness of this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. I am worried, as I am sure is the case with others, about the dangerous signal that might be sent were we to abandon this year's local elections. We are very concerned about the tourist industry. I believe that the most helpful guidance issued by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Jim Scudamore, assists us greatly in that regard.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's announcement that 1.5 million postal voting forms will be circulated to local authorities in the near future is most welcome. There is no doubt that those in the countryside will feel a little more hopeful if there is to be an election, which many of them believe would be inappropriate. Having said that, the handling of a very large number of postal vote applications by local authorities will almost certainly pose administrative, if not resource, problems. Therefore, if there is to be a poll at the beginning of May, can the Minister. assure us that adequate resources will be made available—if necessary, by using the Bellwin rules—to pick up the problem and ensure that absolutely no difficulty will be placed in the way of those who are confined to the countryside?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I said in this respect. I said that 1.5 million postal vote leaflets were being made available for distribution through electoral registration officers. We shall, of course, keep a very careful eye on the number of postal vote applications that are made. I am not aware that representations are currently being made as regards the need for extra resources. I am sure that county councils, and those new unitary authorities that will be going to the polls on 3rd May, will be mindful of the need for adequate resourcing to deal with any increase that may arise in the demand for postal votes.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that experiments have been carried out as regards the process of conducting local elections entirely by post, and that, on those occasions, the turnout was higher than had been the case previously?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords. Selected ward areas were covered by total postal voting during last year's local elections. I believe that turnout in some of those ward areas was as high as 60 per cent; indeed, perhaps a fraction higher. So the democratic process was protected, and there were greater levels of involvement in local elections than ever before. Those who conducted the experiments are to be congratulated on their work. It gives us great confidence to know that people in any sort of election will certainly be able to participate fully by casting their vote.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, very considerable time pressures apply to the completion and return of such forms. Therefore, will the Minister consider the possibility of sending out application forms before a demand arises from voters in restricted areas?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as government, we do not have the power to do so. Clearly, that is a matter for each electoral returning officer properly to consider. I should add that such forms are also available on the Home Office website: www. homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only one-third of the electorate has access to the website? It is all very well to be told that there are 1.5 million postal vote forms for the remaining two-thirds, but how are those people to be told that such forms are available? Is there to be a major advertising campaign, or will it be just word of mouth from your Lordships' House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I have not explained the process clearly enough. I said that 1.5 million postal vote leaflets have already been printed. These will be distributed by electoral registration officers. The Home Office is working with local authorities—and, for that matter, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to secure additional publicity so that people will be fully aware of their postal vote entitlement. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will want to support that endeavour.

Health and Social Care Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"RETENTION OF PROVISION OF CLINICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE NHS
In section 14 of the Health Act 1999 (exercise of powers by NHS trusts) at the end there shall be inserted—
"(10) The exercise of powers conferred by paragraphs 10 to 17 of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act may only be exercised to the extent that it does not involve or permit—

(a) the transfer of contracts of employment of registered doctors, registered nurses or professions allied to medicine from an NHS trust or Care Trust to a non-NHS organisation, or

1160

(b) the creation of contracts by an NHS trust or Care Trust with any non-NHS organisation for the provision of the services previously provided by registered doctors, registered nurses or professions allied to medicine to the Trust.""

The noble Lord said: At this stage, I believe that it is customary to speak for a few moments about generalities so that noble Lords are able to make their way out of the Chamber. Indeed, if I were to start speaking to Amendment No. 26, I am sure that the interest in its provisions would prove to be so overpowering that people would wish to stay to hear the profound arguments that I am about to make. However, I see that I have the Minister's attention, so what more could I want in the circumstances?
In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 and 31. All these amendments are closely related: they relate to the new provisions that the Government are introducing as regards PFI/ PPP. We are not perhaps great fans of PFI/PPP on these Benches, not as a matter of principle but simply because we do not believe that those provisions have achieved some of the aims that they were originally meant to achieve. Moreover, they have not been a very transparent instrument of government in many respects. The intention of my amendments is to try to improve that transparency. As I am sure the Minister is aware, a number of outside organisations have considerable doubts about the width of the current provisions, and my amendments are also designed to narrow the scope of such provisions.
The Government's intentions seem reasonably clear, especially as regards the equity participation provisions. In his response, the Minister may care to explain the motives behind such provisions. There are some who would say—far be it from me to agree with them—that this situation arises because it is not possible to get agreement with the private sector in some circumstances because, quite frankly, the return is not there on some of these schemes if the money is put forward by way of debt, or companies expect to get the full return on their investment. That is why the device of allowing government participation in such companies has been adopted. The Minister needs to give us a very clear idea of the true picture. After all, current PFI/PPP powers are fairly wide, which means that this is a rather novel provision.
In addition, the concordat, which many of us welcomed, allows the private sector a strong relationship with the NHS. It allows a straightforward commercial relationship to exist between the NHS and the independent healthcare sector. That in itself seems to us to have advantages as it is perfectly transparent; the commissioning process is clear and the amount of money that is allocated is clear.
The key area of concern arises in the area of acute services. It appears that the new provisions are mainly directed towards LIFT, the primary care structure which is now to be adopted in order to improve provision in under-resourced areas. In many respects that is to be welcomed. By and large GPs are independent contractors unless they work under PMS contract. That kind of public/private sector

1161
partnership is welcome. These amendments are probing. However, in our view the Government should give an assurance on the extent to which clinical services could be the subject of PFI/PPP. By clinical services, we mean front line specialty services such as medicine, surgery, obstetrics, diagnostic services such as radiology, pathology, clinical biochemistry—services which are an integral part of the acute medical practice in our hospitals.
The case is being strongly made that it will be extremely difficult to have those services provided by PFI/PPP when other services are not provided by PPP. Indeed, we believe that the whole principle of providing clinical services needs much further debate than simply making it an adjunct to the clause. Indeed, it may be an unintended consequence of the clause but the Minister certainly needs to explain what his intentions are in that respect. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for allowing me to say something about the relationships between the NHS and the private sector which the Government wish to see developed. He mentioned two specific aspects: the concordat and the PFI development. I believe that the concordat, which was signed with the Independent Healthcare Association on 31st October 2000, provides a powerful framework that encourages a longer term more proactive relationship between the NHS and the independent sector but which allows for key decisions to be taken at local level. Over the past few months that has been extremely helpful in relation to winter planning and has enabled the NHS both to withstand the many pressures that arise during the winter and to ensure that we maintain progress in relation to waiting list targets. The concordat should be viewed as a wholly encouraging and responsible measure. We wish to see that relationship developed in the future.
As regards PFIs, we have made great progress since 1997 in our hospital development programme. Some 34 major PFI hospital development schemes have been approved since May 1997. In addition, there are a number of PPP arrangements connected with the delivery of IT and information for health projects. I see Clauses 4 and 5 as building on that general philosophy of co-operation and partnership with the private sector. Essentially, Clauses 4 and 5 are both concerned with providing the Secretary of State and the NHS with powers to invest in companies. That will provide a new way of developing public/private partnerships for the purpose of providing services to the NHS or generating income for the NHS. We believe that these two clauses open up exciting opportunities that have not been available to the NHS to date.
I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made about what I believe he described as the straightforwardness of a contractual relationship between the NHS and an independent provider, as opposed to what is enabled by the two clauses. One great advantage of what is being proposed here is that
1162
it makes the NHS much more involved as a key player in the organisation and direction of the kind of partnerships about which we are talking.
The noble Lord rightly referred to what we describe as NHS LIFT—that is another "anacronym" beloved of the NHS—the NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust. This is an exciting proposal, a public/private partnership to raise £1 billion to improve primary care facilities initially focusing on deprived areas. NHS LIFT will invest in local schemes, bringing the local health community and private sector partners, including property experts, into a local partnership to improve primary care facilities. As many Members of the Committee will be aware, the standard of many primary care facilities within deprived areas is poor indeed. We see NHS LIFT as a way of bringing in capital, both public and private, to enhance those facilities and also as a way of providing a great deal of expertise in primary care to develop first-class new facilities.
The first application we envisage of the investment in companies for income generation is the creation of intellectual property spin-off companies. The NHS through its research generates a huge amount of intellectual property, but I am afraid that it has not always realised the commercial potential of its discoveries and inventions. We see spin-off companies as being a recognised approach to exploiting intellectual property that is well understood and is used both by the universities and the commercial sector. Allowing the NHS to adopt the same approach will provide significant new opportunities to realise the value of NHS intellectual property.
I have considered with care the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I consider that they would inhibit the kind of developments that we want to see. In addition, the amendments would place new restrictions on the manner in which NHS bodies currently deliver services. NHS trusts currently subcontract work to the private sector. The concordat framework is a good example of that. Amendment No. 26, if accepted, would prevent that happening.
Amendment No. 29 attempts to circumscribe the services which future public/private partnerships may provide. We have published a list of services which may be provided under contract by the private sector under existing public/private partnership arrangements. The NHS plan commits us to exploring new forms of partnership with the private sector. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that any proposals which include categories of services or staff other than those on the list must be approved by Ministers. I believe that his amendment would prevent the development of many new forms of partnership, for example—this is mentioned in the NHS plan—the proposals to develop partnering arrangements for modernising pathology services.
Amendment No. 31, if accepted, would prevent NHS trusts or care trusts from providing many of the services that they currently provide. It would stop those bodies providing clinical services for the

1163
purposes of generating additional income and it would mean that NHS trusts might have to close all private patient wards. I do not think that that is practical or desirable. I believe that the clauses that we have are sensible and enable the NHS to build on successful public/private partnerships. In particular NHS LIFT gives us a real opportunity to enhance the quality of primary care services.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his frank response. My intention was not to divide the Committee but to elicit the frank response that he has given. Although it will not strike terror, it will cause some trepidation to those who are worried about the ultimate conclusion of PFI/PPP. The Minister said that there is a list beyond which the approval of Ministers will be required. I am not wholly familiar with that list; no doubt we shall familiarise ourselves with it.
However, we are into new territory here. The provision does not relate only to LIFT, as the Minister admitted. I should be happy if it were a matter of intellectual property—spin-off companies to exploit inventions or discoveries that have been made within the public sector—and so on. But we are talking about an extension. As originally conceived, various assurances were given about how far a PPP would go with regard to the provision of clinical services. We are clearly crossing another bridge here. I should be happy with that if the transparency were there; if the comparisons with the public sector were there. As a seeker after truth, I have considered every one of the PFI contracts and sought to calculate how the calculations about the transfer were made. I have had some co-operation with the department in that respect. I am baffled. The comparison between public sector financing and PFI is opaque. That worries me.
In the proposed system we are transferring services across to the private sector but the cost to the public sector is unknown. Whether the figure is calculated over 30 or 60 years, we seem to be on very tricky ground. It is an example of a creeping process of PFI/ PPP. It is interesting that the Minister uses the phrase "exciting opportunities". That is the way in which Ministers have always talked about the PFI. It strikes terror into my heart since it has a certain naivety about it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot let that remark pass. I said "exciting opportunities". The quality of primary care provision in rented accommodation in many inner city areas is often of poor quality. The opportunity to bring in both public and private capital to enhance those premises must surely be exciting. It is one which I believe that GPs and other primary care providers in such areas will welcome warmly.
Perhaps I may give an example. There are GPs who are locked into many years of a lease. It is difficult for them to get out of that lease and move into better accommodation. One of the purposes of NHS LIFT would be to enable that lease to be bought up by an
1164
NHS LIFT, and an appropriate rental scheme developed in new premises for those GPs. I think that those possibilities are exciting.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister uses the best example. If the terms of the clause were limited to ensuring that LIFT were to take flight (perhaps the expression should be to ascend), I would have no quarrel with that. As I said in my introduction, the majority of GPs are independent contractors who should be free to make contracts with the private sector in the way they see fit. If this system is designed to facilitate that, that is all right by me and these Benches.
There is a tendency in the Bill to take a power for one purpose and say, "We think that that is a useful power. We'll make sure that it is available for all kinds of other purposes". We saw that under the finance sections in Clauses 1 to 3. We now see it in Clauses 4 and 5. It is a recurring theme throughout the Bill. That is what worries me. If the power were purely for LIFT, I should have no objection. But we now see a real sea change in what could be possible under the PFI in terms of the provision of clinical services.
The Minister may say that there are some safeguards; the Secretary of State has to approve. But if the Secretary of State gets over-excited about PFI, as Secretaries of State under this Government have done historically, I can tell noble Lords the answer to the request for approval.
We have worries about the power. I think that it is a sea change in the way in which the NHS is organised. Straight commissioning from the private sector is more honest financially, politically and otherwise; that is what I should prefer, rather than this overcomplicated scheme and the drawing of an opaque veil over the whole process.
If we have a further stage of the Bill—that is not known at this moment—we should wish to develop the argument further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Public-private partnerships]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 5, after "otherwise)," insert "or to issue (or procure the issue of) shares or other securities in the companies to any person,"
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 32 to 35.
It is a pleasure to welcome in Clause 4 of the Bill an explicit acknowledgement by the Government of the value of the private sector in helping to deliver facilities and services to the NHS. As I said at Second Reading, we look forward to the arrival of NHS LIFT which holds the potential to bring much-needed improvements to GP premises but, equally important, to do so where there has been market failure in the normal commercial mechanisms for generating such improvement. That is where NHS LIFT will come into its own.
NHS LIFT is an acronym. I thought that the Minister said—I may be wrong—an "anacronym" which conjures up all kinds of pejorative connotations. The Minister's reply to the last group of amendments was helpful. However, there are still many gaps in our knowledge. We have only the barest outline in terms of how the new systems will operate.
One of my main concerns relates to the absence of any specific provision for parliamentary scrutiny. The companies which are set up to handle these activities will undertake very significant financial commitments. One has only to think back to recent history and the sad saga of the New Millennium Experience Company to realise the damage that can be done by, some would say, excessive secrecy when public money is being spent. Instead of shielding Ministers, that secrecy can expose them to an unending series of questions from the press and Parliament. It would be highly desirable if Parliament, as a matter of routine, were to have a statement from the Secretary of State when the powers in Clause 4 are first exercised and then annually so that the financial and other commitments made by the Secretary of State can be monitored properly.
I recognise that there are issues of commercial confidentiality here. I respect that completely. That is why Amendment No. 34, which inserts a new clause after Clause 5, refers to the laying of a written statement "as soon as reasonably practicable".
It is also important to provide for an annual report and accounts to be laid before Parliament in those cases where a company is publicly controlled or where there is any public stake. Those companies will not be non-departmental public bodies. If they were, the laying of accounts would be automatic. However, Clause 4 tells us that the Companies Act will define the rules for preparing the accounts. Therefore we need to create that link with Parliament.
Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 35 grants access rights to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is consistent with the report prepared in February of this year by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, entitled The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government. In that report, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, recommends that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be entitled statutorily to audit publicly owned companies. I believe that my proposal fits in with the spirit of what the noble Lord suggests.
In Amendments Nos. 27 and 32 I have raised a separate and somewhat technical matter. In Clauses 4 and 5 the Government give themselves the power to form companies, but not to issue shares in those companies to a private partner. I recall that a specific provision was thought necessary to do that in the context of NATS. Is the same true here?
Amendments Nos. 28 and 33 were prompted by a political concern. I welcome the introduction of the new powers, but they are only powers. They would not have to be used by any future Secretary of State who was less open-minded than the present one obviously is on the suitability of the private sector as a vehicle for bringing about improvements. The thought that I should like to plant in the Minister's mind through the
1166
amendments is that the Secretary of State should have an obligation to consider in all such cases whether the private sector offers an appropriate means of delivering the desired outcome. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have an excuse for ignoring the private sector option merely because he is ideologically hostile to it.
I conclude my remarks with a few questions for the Minister on the clauses. Clause 5 gives a power to form companies that in one way or another will work to the benefit of the health service. What will happen to the current terms and conditions of service of employees of the health service who are asked to go and work for one of those companies? Will TUPE rules apply to them?
Secondly, will the Minister provide some concrete examples of how the powers in Clause 5 are likely to be used? Will he expand on his reference to intellectual property? I am probably not alone in finding the Explanatory Notes slightly less than helpful here. In particular, will he lay to rest a current canard on anonymised patient data? There is a rumour going about that once the copyright for the information can be controlled by the Secretary of State, as Clause 67 provides, it is only a short step away from being vested in him. Once that happens, the information will be ripe for commercial exploitation by the Department of Health. I hope that that is an unfounded rumour, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister repudiate it.
Lastly, if the Government take only a minority stake in a company, as I understand is the intention with NHS LIFT, what leverage will they have to ensure that investment is channelled to where it is most needed? Where there is market failure in the normal mechanisms for attracting investment or loan finance, how will NHS LIFT ensure that those deprived parts of the country receive the money that they have been unable to generate elsewhere? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, particularly for his general welcome for what is proposed and the benefits that he sees in NHS LIFT. I shall try to respond to the points that he has raised.
The aim of the clauses is to enable the Secretary of State to enter into public/private partnerships to deliver services to the NHS or for the purpose of income generation. The noble Earl has raised some important points, but they are covered. Amendments Nos. 27 and 32 would enable the Secretary of State to issue shares or other securities in a company to any other person or company. That is unnecessary because any company established under the powers in these clauses could issues its own shares. We would not want a power to allow the Secretary of State to issue those shares. The aim of the clauses is to allow the Secretary of State to participate in establishing a company as part of a public-private partnership. We do not envisage the Secretary of State setting up a wholly owned company and then issuing shares at a later date.

1167
The noble Earl asked what leverage the Secretary of State would have if he had a minority shareholding in such an organisation. Any companies so established would focus on NHS activities. If the Secretary of State was unhappy with the progress of a company and its policies, he could walk away from it. The credibility of such partnerships rests on the NHS having confidence in the arrangements.
I shall resist Amendments Nos. 28 and 33 because they would return us to the days when all proposals for capital investment had to be subject to testing for private finance. As part of our aim to decentralise decision-making to local level, we are not insisting on a rigid approach on that. The noble Earl will probably recall the Sackville pledge under the previous government. Testing of all investment for PFI led to a huge amount of bureaucracy and real problems in making progress. We require the NHS to ensure value for money in all proposed investments. Current guidance is clear that all procurement that would involve capital expenditure should normally consider PFI, but if an NHS trust considers that a project has very little chance of attracting private finance—for example, if it is a very small scheme—the interests of the NHS would not be served by testing for PFI and PPP. In those circumstances, the trust is exempted from a requirement to consider PFI. Each project is considered on its merits. It is best to leave that decision to individual NHS trusts.
The noble Earl asked about TUPE. It would apply either as a matter of law or under Cabinet Office guidance. I hope that that gives him the assurance that he requires.
I have come across an example of a spin-out company, which the noble Earl asked for. The Royal Marsden is developing what is called a PET scanner. A new company has been formed to develop that machine, but at the moment the Royal Marsden cannot take shares in that company. The NHS is integral to the development of new machines in such cases and it would be a matter of great regret if it were not allowed to enjoy the fruits of the work that had been undertaken.
I assure the noble Earl that any company formed under Clauses 4 and 5 will be required under Companies Act regulations to produce annual reports and accounts. It is our intention that all the companies formed under Section 96C(1) of the 1977 Act will be public companies. That means that a report and accounts must be filed with Companies House within seven months of the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State will ensure that the published reports and accounts are placed in the Libraries of both Houses promptly following publication.
To answer the noble Earl's specific point, the Department of Health's annual report will in future include a section providing details on all investing activities. It will include information on audited bodies, such as the name of each company, the purpose for which it was formed, the percentage of each class
1168
of share held by the Secretary of State, the amounts invested and the details of loans or guarantees provided.
Those reporting requirements will be in addition to the statutory reporting requirements with which the companies will be required to comply. Statutory reporting requirements will include the following: any share held by the Secretary of State or his nominee will be disclosed in the Department of Health's resource accounts, which will be published in compliance with the Government's resource accounting manual; and, in the case of Clause 4 for health authorities or primary care trusts and Clause 5 for NHS trusts, any investment will be disclosed in the annual accounts, which are required to be published under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997.
I come to the interesting point which the noble Earl raised with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General. At present, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have that power. However, the scope of his remit is currently being considered by the Government. We have already said that, under the review of companies which is being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry, we shall consider the possibility of legislating to make the Comptroller and Auditor General a Companies Act auditor.
The noble Earl is right to say that that was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his recent review of audit accountability for central government. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that, if the recommendations of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, are accepted, clearly they will apply to any PPP. At this stage I cannot prejudge either the outcome of the review or the Government's response. However, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that we wish to ensure that that information is placed in the public domain.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may press the Minister on something that he said. I may have misheard him. He mentioned that the Secretary of State would walk away from any partnership which he felt was unsatisfactory or possibly failing. I can understand his wish to do that, but how does that give confidence to the private sector? What guarantees will the private sector have?
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister whether he will respond to the question about attracting developers into the heartbreak wilderness areas, to which, in the past, they have not been attracted. What incentives does the scheme provide to ensure that developers go into those areas? If they do not, that will reinforce the inverse care law, which would be a great pity.
Finally, I want to ask about the spin-out companies which were mentioned by the Minister. In debate in another place, the Minister, Mr Denham, described the development of spin-out companies as exploiting intellectual property. I very much endorse that. I believe it is right that the NHS should benefit financially from innovation discovered within the service. However, without going into detail, in another place the Minister said that we must recognise that

1169
clear procedures are needed for managing risks with spin-out companies. I believe that it would be very helpful to the House if the Minister could set out the details of those companies. It may not be possible to do so this afternoon, but he may be able to place something in the Library which we can see before Report stage—if, indeed, there is one.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In answer to the final point made by the noble Baroness, we shall, of course, need to set out guidance and procedures to ensure that the management of such companies is conducted properly and that we do not, for example, face a situation in which an NHS trust becomes rather over-entrepreneurial and seeks to make money at the expense of its core activities. We are clear that spin-off companies should enable the NHS to see a return. However, that is based very much on taking advantage of the work being done within the NHS trust. I shall find what information I can to send to noble Lords and to place in the Library before Report stage. However, clearly further work needs to be undertaken following the passage of this Bill.
In relation to the Secretary of State walking away from an agreement, I very much hope that that does not happen; indeed, I have been encouraged by the discussions that have taken place between the department and various potential public/private partners in the whole area of public/private partnership. Of course, the intention is that an agreement should be reached on the best way forward with a commitment on both sides to make the project work. I was simply answering the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as to how to proceed in the event of a fundamental breakdown in the relationship. However, there will be a great deal of incentive on both sides to ensure that such a relationship does not break down.
The noble Baroness raised an interesting point in asking why this project will be more successful than others in improving the quality of facilities in primary care areas. I want to make two points about that. First, the Government will put money into the scheme so that it will be seen to have received commitment in a financial as well as a policy sense.
Secondly, because of the way that NHS LIFT will operate, there will be a greater opportunity to put together sensible programmes which will be successful. Perhaps I may give an example. At present, very often a problem in relation to primary care is that schemes are limited and small-scale and, therefore, are not particularly attractive to major investors. However, by batching together a number of different developments, savings can be made both in development and transaction costs.
A third area in which the project is likely to be more successful is in building up a residue of expertise. Again, at present, in attempting to sort out poor quality primary care facilities, a problem is faced in knowing where to turn in order to find expertise, particularly in relation to private sector investment. I believe that the whole package of NHS LIFT will be able to provide the type of expertise that is required.
1170
None the less, I believe that that is a great challenge faced in primary care. It fits together with our other plans to ensure that the resource allocation formula also provides financial incentives.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may press the Minister on the information that will be given when the new companies are set up. If I heard him correctly, he said that he would devote an extra chapter of the Department of Health's annual report to those companies and would give the information which Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide. The annual report is published six months or so after the end of the year. Therefore, if one of those companies were to be set up on, let us say, 1st April 2001, information might be made available to the public in October 2002. The amendment provides for early information to be given when one of those companies is set up.
I should be interested to know how the Minister saw information being made available to Parliament on a more timely basis. We must recognise that, in setting up those companies, significant financial commitments could be entered into, guarantees given by the Government, and significant projects could be entered into whether the Government have a minority or majority interest; that matters little. When the Government are involved in such companies, many issues are raised with regard to the Government standing behind the companies. Perhaps I may press the Minister on what information he envisages will be made available to Parliament in advance of the Department of Health's annual report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I rest my case on the information that I have already given. In terms of appropriate parliamentary reporting, the Department of Health's annual report provides the necessary information to ensure that Parliament is aware of what has occurred. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, hinted at the fact that it would be premature to bring information before Parliament at an early stage in the discussions or agreement. I believe that the suggestion in relation to a short period of retrospection would discharge appropriate information to Parliament. After all, as the noble Baroness said, the information would be available only a few months after the end of a financial year.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may make the point that there would be a potential delay of 18 months after a transaction had occurred. That is rather a long time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I accept that, but we are not talking here about a requirement for parliamentary approval to be given. That is a matter for agreement between the Secretary of State and any of the companies involved. The question is how that action should be reported. I really believe that a period of six months or so after the end of the financial year is appropriate and, indeed, consistent with reporting by the previous government.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his very full reply and for the number of helpful assurances that he was able to give me. I shall obviously read extremely carefully what he said.
Perhaps I may pick up two points. The Minister indicated in response to my Amendments Nos. 28 and 33 that it was inappropriate to suggest that the Secretary of State should automatically consider the private sector whenever there is a proposal on the table for a new project under either of those clauses. He referred back to the regime of compulsory competitive tendering which used to operate. That was not in my head when I tabled the amendments. The wording of the amendments is chosen carefully to ensure that the Secretary of State should consider whether the facilities or services in question can be provided most efficiently and cost-effectively through the involvement of the private sector. So, if he were to decide that a process of competitive tendering was not appropriate because it was not cost-effective, then that would not happen. I was sorry that the Minister was not able to take on board the point I made in the spirit in which I was trying to make it.
The second point to which I want to refer is a point which my noble friend has just mentioned; that is, the ability of the Secretary of State to use NHS LIFT to direct investment to where it is most needed. I queried whether as a shareholder in a minority company, the Secretary of State would have much leverage in that sense.
I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that in the final analysis, the Secretary of State could walk away from the company. Unless I am completely wrong, NHS LIFT will essentially be a finance company. Because the Secretary of State will have only a minority holding, the borrowing of that finance company will be off the public sector balance sheet. Although that borrowing will be raised at commercial rates, it will be at very favourable commercial rates, by virtue of the Secretary of State's shareholding.
I am not sure how reassured the City will be to hear that the Secretary of State could simply walk away from such an arrangement. That is a surprising thing to contemplate because the private sector needs to be given as much confidence as possible. The taxpayer and the general public need to be given confidence that there is proper value for money for public funds.
We all look forward with great interest to what NHS LIFT will bring to us.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to that. First, we are earmarking £175 million for investment in NHS LIFT over four years. That is a very substantial degree of investment and it shows the degree of commitment which we have to making NHS LIFT work. Equally we want to move on as quickly as possible the refurbishment of primary care facilities in this country. That will certainly not happen overnight. Therefore, the City can look to continuing support and enthusiasm for what is planned from the Government.
1172
The point I am trying to make is that, if the Government have a shareholding in a particular company, they can do what other shareholders can do in companies, no more than that.
Earl Howe: I hear what the Minister says. We both hope that it will never come to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
"(6) For the purpose of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make regulations to establish and require systems of operation that safeguard patient interests, in particular to ensure adequate care standards, accountability and transparency.
(7) Before making any regulations under subsection (6) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies who represent the interests of those likely to be affected by the regulations."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must make regulations to ensure that systems are in place which safeguard patients' interests, especially in ensuring adequate standards of care, accountability and transparency. It states also that before making such regulations, the Secretary of State,
"shall consult such bodies who represent the interests of those likely to be affected by the regulations".
In particular, this amendment would ensure that commercial interests were not put ahead of patients' interests. In another place, it was implied by the Minister in Committee that that provision is mainly about the provision of premises. I thought that might have been an accidental slip, but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with a long history in the NHS, also emphasised that in his reply to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. However, that is not what the Bill says.
The Bill includes services. Clause 4 permits public/ private partnerships to employ doctors and nurses and to provide clinical services. The remit of the private sector extends there into the mainstream NHS. I have severe reservations about that and the fact that this has been slipped in here and, therefore, there has been very little debate on the issue.
However, given that that is what it does, we must make explicit that patients' interests are paramount. Such arrangements must provide the highest standards of care. It is vital also that arrangements should be transparent and accountable. That is what this amendment would help to achieve.
The NHS should place patients and their interests at the heart of its thinking, regardless of how and where that patient is treated. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to disturb the rather excessive calm of the afternoon but I find myself on what I hope is the Government's side. I hope that the noble Lord will not accept the noble Baroness's amendment for the very good reason that while I do not fall over backwards ever to applaud the inborn intelligence and vision of any Secretary of State, I

1173
cannot see how any Secretary of State addressing those problems can possibly fail to have in mind the need to establish and require systems of operation that safeguard patients' interests. If he is not interested in patients' interests, then, manifestly, he should not be in the job at all. We should not waste our time instructing the Secretary of State to do anything quite so obvious as this.
I will go so far as to say that Secretaries of State are not absolutely congenital idiots. To suggest that they need to consult those who represent the interests of those likely to be affected by the regulations is somewhat superfluous, to put it very mildly, and I hope that the Minister will reject the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Indeed, perhaps it is an opportunity for me to plug again his excellent autobiography of ministerial life which no doubt he would consider to be a pattern of consistency across his own work as a Minister and what is being proposed here today.
He is absolutely right. Clearly, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which a Secretary of State would agree to any of the proposals under these clauses were he not to believe that they were in the best interests of patients.
I do not want to go through a whole list of responsibilities, obligations, current regulatory checks and financial legal requirements that exist in relation to any action that is undertaken by the Secretary of State or NHS bodies in relation to the NHS generally and the use of these new powers, but they are extensive. There is the legal duty of the quality of care, clinical governance, the role of the Commission for Health Improvement, the NHS performance assessment framework, the NHS clinical governance support work and the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. All those mechanisms—some noble Lords believe there are too many—are in place to ensure that the NHS operates in the best interests of the public.
I want to make it clear that Clause 4 does not seek to establish new ways of working for the private sector. Any service or facility delivered as a public/private partnership will need to be to a specified standard. That specified standard will be no different from that required of any other provider, whether in the NHS or the private sector. The sanctions that are in place within any contract to ensure a high quality of service and the requirement and duty on the Secretary of State and NHS organisations always to act in the best interests of patients and the public surely are safeguards enough.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Courtesy obliges me to say how much I am indebted to the noble Lord for his kind reference to my autobiography. In fairness to the
1174
Minister, I should make it absolutely clear that, in the present political climate, I shall not be paying him any commission!
Baroness Northover: It is refreshing to hear such trust as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has expressed. I am obviously of a cynical, younger generation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Baroness speaks of "such trust". My tribute to Secretaries of State was that I thought that they were entitled to the assumption that they were not congenital idiots. I did not go very far!
Baroness Northover: I hope that he will be proved right. We shall see. The Minister reassures me and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Income generation]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Terms and conditions of employment by health service bodies]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: At Second Reading the Minister took me to task for describing this Bill as a series of centralising measures. However, like it or not, in Clause 6 we have a classic example of a centralising measure. The clause creates a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene in laying down the terms and conditions of the staff employed by NHS trusts and primary care trusts. The explanatory notes speak of the need to modernise the NHS pay system—the word "modernise" is greatly overused—and the Government's desire to deliver better, fairer awards for staff.
No one can argue with the desire for fairness in the awards for staff, but why it is thought to be fair to have a uniform set of terms and conditions imposed from above on each area of the country is not explained. To me it is self-evident that different conditions of employment exist in different areas. Someone living in the south-east of England will have a higher cost of living than someone in the north of England. The quality of life in low-cost areas is often a great deal better than in high-cost areas. I am baffled as to why the Government want to treat those two cases as identical, instead of doing exactly the opposite, which is to recognise that the NHS needs local structures and local flexibility to address the problems that it faces in different areas.
The health service suffers from many difficulties, but in my opinion at the heart of all of them is the problem of recruiting and retaining staff. That problem will not be solved by regulation and direction-making powers that seek to determine the way in which every NHS trust and PCT deals with its staff.

1175
That is not what happens in the commercial world, where, typically, power and responsibility are devolved downwards.
When NHS trusts were first set up an important element in the design was operational freedoms. Managers of NHS trusts run complex businesses in which staff costs represent a major part of the annual budget. To deny local freedoms, as proposed by this clause, is a significant inhibition. Once you tell managers that they must abide by national regulations and directions, it is difficult to see what real freedoms exist.
I shall be glad to hear from the Minister that I have interpreted this clause in an over-literal way and that local flexibilities in the setting of pay and conditions will still be allowed to continue. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government view the future shape of pay structures being determined and the extent to which managerial discretion will play a role in such matters?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am in the happy position of being able to agree with every word spoken by my noble friend. Not being restrained by the discipline of being on the Front Bench, I can perhaps be a little freer in the expression of my opinions. I rely entirely on the Explanatory Notes which on such occasions the Government kindly provide. Paragraph 48, with an air of novelty, states:
"The NHS Plan commits to modernisation of the NHS Pay system to deliver better, fairer awards for staff".
There is nothing new about that. I believe that generations of Ministers and Governments have aimed at precisely that. No matter how intelligent, or unintelligent, they have been, none of them can ever claim that their profound and continued efforts have resulted in total satisfaction for anybody in the whole of the National Health Service. We have been here before. What is the point of repeating exercises that so far have failed? Or is this to be something totally and fundamentally new?
Before I leave that paragraph and despite what I said about Secretaries of State not being congenital idiots, I go further and congratulate them on the degree of—I almost said courage, but that is the wrong word—daring that they show in promising this. If anyone believes them, I would place a large wager that their hopes will eventually be disappointed.
The next paragraph in the Explanatory Notes gives powers to the health authorities to employ people on such terms as they think fit. The sentence breaks off and this is added:
"but subject to regulations or directions by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales".
What on earth is the good of saying, "They can do what they like as long as they agree with me"? That is what the Secretary of State is saying. There is no point in doing that. All of us understand perfectly that neither the primary care trusts nor the NHS trusts could possibly act in the matter of salaries and awards without the consent and agreement of the Secretary of
1176
State. Why, in the name of conscience, do the Government not say so, instead of giving us all this flannel?
Baroness Cumberlege: Will the Minister elucidate one point for me? In dealing with Clause 6, the Explanatory Notes state:
"The NHS Plan commits to modernisation of the NHS Pay system to deliver better, fairer awards for staff".
The Minister will remember that during his distinguished career in the NHS we saw the rise of the pay review bodies. They were introduced because staff felt that the awards they were receiving were not fair. They felt that they needed an independent body which would assess their work and make recommendations about their pay and conditions.
Where in these provisions do the pay review bodies appear? Will the Secretary of State take into account their recommendations and will he either overrule them or agree with them?
A great benefit of the pay review bodies is that they take evidence from everyone concerned and it is published. Everyone in the NHS knows what is happening. However, the Explanatory Note states:
"Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State … would be required to consult representative bodies".
Does that mean that he will take evidence in the same way and will that evidence be published? If not, how do we know on what basis the Secretary of State is making the decisions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to the debate which has run through all our discussions in Committee; that is, the balance between national determination in relation to the NHS and local freedom of action for NHS employers.
I was interested in the noble Lord's analysis of efforts made by previous Ministers to deal with pay, staff and recruitment in the NHS. Looking back over 52 years of the NHS, we see that during most of its life a centralised system of pay determination was undertaken through the Whitley councils and latterly through pay review bodies in relation to doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors. There was little discretion at local level and that became frustrating for local employers.
In response to that, the previous government introduced local pay but in the end that was not successful. First, it is interesting to note that, although most trusts introduced local contracts of employment, the vast majority of those contracts simply mirrored national agreements. Therefore, although the procedure could be defined as local pay determination, in practice it was still local administration of national agreements.
Secondly, a wholesale translation of decisions on pay to local level ignores the fact that the NHS is a national service. Often, as regards the group of staff we are seeking to attract, there is a finite number of people whose sole employment is within the NHS. In those circumstances, it does not make sense to have a free-for-all at local level.

1177
Thirdly, the failure of local pay determination, as the previous government tried to introduce it, was also due to the fact that those in the NHS never wanted it and never accepted it. There were always problems when not only the workforce but managers were not signed up to the devolvement.
We are trying to get the balance right.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: We can all recall and remind ourselves of past failures and shortcomings. However, I am asking the Minister to enlighten me on how the Secretary of State will improve on matters with his interventions. What magical balm will he breathe over these awkward problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was just coming to that. We were faced with a local pay system which was not working, disparate employment practices and an inflexible structure at national level. For example, even as regards Whitley contracts which are agreed nationally, there are large variations in payments between different staff groups for, say, working unsocial hours and overtime rates. That makes it difficult at local level to introduce team working and to break down barriers between professions.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in discussions with staff organisations we are proposing to get the balance right between the national framework for employment, which the clause will help ensure is followed in every NHS trust, and the local flexibility needed by individual employers in the NHS. For instance, if the current negotiations are successfully concluded, we will give NHS trusts local flexibility over defining the skills and knowledge needed to do particular jobs, but a national framework for core skills and knowledge applicable to all staff in similar jobs. Again, we would give trusts the freedom to determine the working patterns which they need to deliver services, but a consistent and simplified framework for rewarding staff whose working patterns are particularly demanding.
Returning to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, it is not the intention to regulate for everything that must be done at local level. That is why the Bill allows for trusts to retain their existing freedoms to decide whom to employ and to reach local agreement about terms in the areas where regulations and direction have not been made.
Most NHS terms and conditions are already determined nationally for most staff, and have been under successive administrations. In the light of that, many employers have already indicated their desire for an approach to contracts that is somewhere between purely national and purely local by developing what they describe as hybrid contracts. That would include some local elements but also replicate or import many of the terms and conditions in national contracts.
1178
The clause seeks to develop that intermediate approach further by defining a national framework where that is to the advantage of the NHS nationally, leaving other matters to local employers where there is advantage in so doing. A good example of that is in job evaluation. Under the current national system, jobs are defined centrally and pay is determined centrally. Under the new system currently under negotiation, jobs can be defined locally. If a trust identified the need for someone who combines skills for different occupational areas, it would be able to devise such a job. It would not need to have a central edict telling it how to do it.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that in determining pay, a trust would also have the facility to make allowance for labour market shortages. However, the long-run basic pay for the post will need to be determined by a nationally agreed job evaluation system in order to ensure consistency with equal pay principles and thus protect the NHS from subsequent equal pay claims.
I accept that there will always be debates about where the balance between national and local rests, but I do not believe that it detracts from the principle of trying to get local flexibility. However, where national guidance and direction is required, the procedure will enable that to happen.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about pay review bodies, the position remains the same. It is the job of the independent pay review bodies to make recommendations. It is then up to the Government whether or not to accept them. I believe that the record of the current Government in accepting the recommendations of pay review bodies is absolutely excellent, in sharp contrast to previous efforts where phasing was introduced in providing awards. That was a very demoralising factor for NHS staff.
In the end, no one can pretend that to devise a pay system which meets everyone's desire is easy. As to that. I accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. But where we can make progress on agreements with staff organisations at national level, which in the main allow for a national framework that is put in place locally, we need the powers provided in the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: We could have a ding-dong on this matter. It is true that the previous government phased awards, but the Labour government before them were alone in failing to honour nurses' awards. If the framework is already set by the pay review body and Whitley councils, what will happen to the Whitley councils in future? The previous government introduced local pay which provides the flexibilities about which the Minister speaks. I believe that this clause usurps the agreed framework of the pay review bodies and the Whitley councils and substitutes the Secretary of State. As to that, there are real reservations on this side of the Committee. Secretaries of State come and go. It is right that National Health

1179
Service staff should know where they stand. They should be aware of the framework and have an input into it, as they do now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The discussions with staff organisations and employers have shown great support for the direction in which we are proceeding. I believe that nothing I have said could undermine the role of pay review bodies. They are independent bodies which make recommendations to the Secretary of State. If we want a modern pay system, the real problem is that there are different groups of staff with different terms and conditions at local level. That is inflexible and sometimes it is very difficult to enable staff to cross professional barriers. The NHS Plan is very keen, rightly so, to try to break down some of the professional barriers. Job evaluation is a very important component in trying to break down those barriers so that there is greater consistency of approach between different staff groups. That will not work unless there is confidence that when agreement is reached at national level it will be implemented at local level. But the whole purpose of an area like job evaluation is to allow for local flexibility, and that is why the power would be used only when it was needed. As always, we wish to ensure that there is as much local freedom as possible.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lady Cumberlege whose remarks are, as ever, 100 per cent apposite. Despite the Minister's reasonable tone, there are lingering worries about the clause. The noble Lord spoke about the setting up of a national framework to facilitate hybrid contracts of employment. I cannot help but believe that, at the end of the day, the local flexibilities which remain will be a good deal narrower than those that obtain at present, which is a pity.
I should like to put one further question to the Minister, who apparently seeks to respond in any case. I may have an unworthy suspicion. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the clause is perhaps a Trojan horse? Is it seen by Ministers as a means by which a consultant contract could be imposed unilaterally by the Government?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course, this clause could be used in relation to the employment of doctors. But I assure the noble Earl that the current situation causes real problems for local employers in securing the flexibility they want. Even with the so-called freedoms on local pay, which they have very great difficulty in implementing, the health service is hidebound by years of tradition and national agreements, all of which produce different terms and conditions for different groups of staff. If at national level we can sort out a good deal of that, we can provide greater flexibility at local level and ensure that as between employers and different staff groups there is more effective team working because of greater consistency of approach.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 6. insert the following new clause—
"COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS: ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS
(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing, in relation to Community Health Councils ("Councils") in England, for—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) References in subsection (1) to "services" are references to—

(a) services provided as part of the health service (within the meaning of the 1977 Act) in England;

(b) services provided in England in pursuance of arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999; and

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

(3) In subsection (2)—

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

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

(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with Councils and such patients' and carers' organisations as he considers appropriate."
The noble Lord said: The Committee moves on to what I believe will be one of the most contentious parts of the Bill. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments against the current structure set out in the Bill which many of us on all Benches expressed at Second Reading and in other debates in this Chamber. In moving Amendment No. 36, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 88, 90 to 95 and 139, but not 136 and 137, which should come later in the Committee's deliberations.
I should like to present a menu of possibilities which the Minister may care to inspect. Both in Committee in the other place and, to some degree, in the run-up to this debate the Government have demonstrated some flexibility in relation to the pattern that they tried to establish in the national plan, which was a hasty concoction. They produced for our inspection a very fragmented plan which effectively disaggregated consultation from advocacy, advocacy from scrutiny, scrutiny from representation, and so on. We were in danger of being left with so many different bodies doing different things that the public would be even more confused than we as politicians might be. A number of these amendments try to bring some of this together.
Various approaches are reflected in the amendments. The first one, which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 36, 85 and, to a degree, 88, is more or less a return to a reformed status quo. The amendments try to indicate that the way forward is to build on the existing CHCs. It is probable that too much water has gone under the bridge for that approach to be the right one to adopt. Nevertheless, in passing many of us believe that that is the approach which the Government should have adopted originally, and if at later stages of the Bill in this House the Government do not demonstrate flexibility, that might be the approach that we would be forced to take, simply because there would not be time to adopt a structure which would build in more of the powers and safeguards that we believe are right. I simply place that on record for the benefit of the Minister.
The second approach is not to be very prescriptive about the way forward. Amendment No. 139 attempts to put together something along those lines. One may say that reform is necessary and the Government should have powers to achieve it. That does not appear to be wholly satisfactory, since obviously Ministers are given far too much discretion on which to build. Nevertheless, it has the benefit of preserving the CHCs
1182
in a transitional period and would allow the Government to take rather longer over this somewhat hasty set of reforms.
The third approach, which, for the purposes of this Committee, we on these Benches prefer, is to try to pull together and add to the powers of the patients' forums and patients' councils to give them some additional meaningful powers and duties. In particular, would commend to the Minister Amendment No. 92, which provides for independent advocacy services to be brought into the net of the patients' councils. We believe that it is very important that there should be a clear nexus between the two. That nexus is not sufficiently clear under the terms of the current Bill.
We believe that further, more radical restructuring is required so that the patients' councils, rather than the patients' forums, become the units on which we can build. The patients' forums are in danger of proliferating. If we had a patients' forum for each trust, we would have a large number of patients' forums, which would make it difficult for members of the public to identify who was leading in terms of consultation, representation, etc. We believe that the patients' councils should form the key units, with the patients' forums essentially bolting underneath them.
Amendment No. 94 grants further power to the councils. Amendment No. 97 includes coverage of the complaints system, which we believe is a very important function performed (perhaps non - statutorily) by the CHCs and should be continued by the patients' councils. In passing, we also believe that the complaints system should cover not only acute trusts and other parts of the NHS but also care homes and the independent healthcare sector. We have previously debated that point. However, I believe that the Minister's reaction to it would be of great benefit.
I should emphasise certain key points about these amendments, many though they may be. I think that if the independent advocacy services were pulled under patients' councils, we should have made great progress in this matter. In addition, if the oversight of the new complaints system, however it is shaped, were in the hands of patients' councils, many of us would feel much more sanguine about the scheme that the Government have adopted. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to my amendments included in this group, namely, Amendments Nos. 85 to 88, 90 to 95 inclusive, 97 and 319.
Those amendments, like those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, leapfrog us forward to Clause 13. Perhaps I may begin by saying that, in tabling almost every one of my amendments to this part of the Bill, my main aim was to try to make the structures proposed by the Bill more coherent, less confusing, and generally more joined-up. These amendments to Clause 13 are perhaps the most important in that category. Although at first sight they may seem complicated, they are in fact designed to rationalise and improve the fragmented arrangements that otherwise appear to lie in store for us.

1183
The Minister knows my strongly-held views on CHCs. There are effective ones and less effective ones. The best are excellent and achieve a very great deal on behalf of patients and the community. Others have not made such an impact. Unless I misrepresent him, I believe that the Minister is of the view that CHCs overall have failed to live up to the promise that they generally enjoyed when they first started in 1974, and that he uses that argument to justify their abolition.
My view is different. I believe that the rational approach would be to consider the powers and functions of CHCs, decide what are their good points and which of them are worth preserving, decide also how they are deficient, and then work towards reforming them.
As currently constituted, CHCs have a great deal going for them. Perhaps their most obvious useful feature is that they are a one-stop shop. They combine the role of watchdog with that of complaints handling. They have the right to be consulted in the planning and operation of services and to make recommendations about those services. They inspect premises, including private sector premises. The best CHCs have established advocacy services as part of their day-to-day functions. Every CHC has the precious privilege of a direct line to the Secretary of State. Above all, they are valued, and hence respected, because they are independent.
I therefore suggest that the extent to which the CHCs have failed to deliver is not the fault of their structure. It has much more to do with the level at which they have been resourced and the fact that their powers are not sufficiently all-embracing. Advocacy has never been a statutory duty of CHCs, but many CHCs have either supported or provided advocacy services. We should try to build on that.
It will not be an easy task to reshape this Bill to give effect to what I have just said. However, I believe that it is possible to take a number of the Bill's provisions as the starting point for effective reform. In so doing, we should aim to deliver both what the Government would like to see, which, I take it, is an enhanced degree of involvement and empowerment for the patients and the public, and what I would like to see, namely, a way of building on the inherent advantages and merits of CHCs, and, in that process, provide better and more effective CHCs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I suggest that the way to achieve that is through patients' councils. I believe that CHCs, if reborn as patients' councils, would be a major move in the direction of rationalising the fragmented structures currently proposed by the Bill. That rationalisation would also serve to reconcile what I fear is an otherwise irreconcilable gap between us and the Government. Patients' councils would preserve the existing structures for patient representation and advocacy, except that independent advocacy would become a new core function.
To give effect to this, I have transposed the key elements of Clause 17 to Clause 13, with the notable additional feature that the advocacy role undertaken
1184
by patients' councils would extend to patients of private hospitals and care homes. Patients' councils would be able to report and make recommendations to NHS bodies, to local authorities and to the Secretary of State, thus facilitating the essential sharing of information. Like CHCs, they would have a statutory right to be consulted by health authorities, and they would have the right to whistle blow.
I suggest that it would make a great deal more sense if patients' forums, instead of being separately constituted bodies, were established as subcommittees of patients' councils. In that way, there would be absolutely no doubt in the public's mind as to the independence of patients' forums, which, rightly or wrongly, I fear may be an issue in the future if the Government proceed. Under my model, there would be no prospect at all of the members of patients' forums feeling isolated or lacking in proper support.
One of the beauties of that approach is continuity. Looking at the Government's proposals, I confess that I am worried about the transitional arrangements that may be put in place, and about the expense of running two systems in tandem, which for a while would doubtless be necessary. The benefit of enabling CHC personnel, with all their expertise, to continue in post would be obvious. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these amendments may seem daunting. However, I hope that the logic is clear and that the Government will take them in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
Baroness Cumberlege: I strongly support my noble friend's amendments. There is a feeling, which I am sure the Minister will seek to dismiss eloquently, that the proposals now tabled have not been very well thought through, and that one structure has been piled upon another to resolve any problem that exists. I have tried really hard to get through this issue. Your Lordships will know that I am a slow learner. I have looked at the whole issue from a patient's point of view. I am not looking at the matter from the point of view of a community health council, but from that of a patient, a complainant, someone seeking redress.
I have called my patient Mrs Archibald. Mrs Archibald, aged 80, suffers a stroke one night. Her relatives contact her GP who refuses to come out. They dial 999 for an ambulance. There is a long delay before the ambulance arrives. On arrival at the hospital Mrs Archibald is left on a trolley in the A & E department for three hours before being seen by a doctor. She spends a further 14 hours before being sent to a surgical ward. That is because the medical wards are full and there is no dedicated stroke unit. Her stay in hospital is three weeks longer than necessary as no suitable place can be found to meet her very dependent needs. On leaving hospital she is inappropriately assessed. She is sent to a residential home instead of a nursing home which she requires.
That short vignette raises six associated policy issues: first, the access to a GP out-of-hours; secondly, the response times of the ambulance service; thirdly, the performance standards in the A & E department;

1185
fourthly, stroke care; fifthly, delayed discharge; and, sixthly, quality and multi-disciplinary continuing care assessment.
As is so often the case with complainants, Mrs Archibald's daughter is keen that no other patient should endure what her mother has suffered. She wishes to prevent that happening by making a complaint. She has heard of the PALS system, but since this case arose at night none was on duty. The Minister would agree that even if they had been on duty, it is doubtful whether they would have been able to persuade a GP to turn out at night. The ambulance trust PALS and the PALS in the hospital would have had a problem to expedite the ambulance or to overcome the shortage of beds that night.
In this case three patients' forums have a policy remit: the PCT forum, the ambulance trust forum, and the hospital trust forum. Mrs Archibald's daughter goes to the patients' council with her complaint. The council "anonymises" the details and sends the complaint to the three chairs of the three forums. Each chair is a non-executive director of the corresponding trust. Each forum discusses a section of the complaint relevant to that trust and asks the respective chair to raise the issue at the next trust board meeting.
The chair of the hospital forum is reluctant because it has recently had a great deal of bad press over its A & E service. The trust chair has instructed all the non-executives to try and promote a positive image. The forum non-executive agrees to raise the issue in the private part of the meeting after the press and the public have been excluded. However, that means that he cannot report back to the relatives as he has a duty to keep the discussion confidential.
The PCT forum's non-executive raises the issue of GP out-of-hours services. Although, through the health authority, the board can influence the generality of out-of-hours services, it cannot influence the services a GP directly provides because he is an independent contractor. There is no patient's representative on the health authority to raise the policy issue.
The ambulance forum non-executive raises the issue of response times. The board agrees that it needs more money from the commissioning bodies to improve these times, but it does not know if it will be forthcoming and "unbadged". There is no forum where discussions on delayed discharges and multidisciplinary assessment can be raised.
Mrs Archibald's daughter is advised to raise these policy issues with a local authority scrutiny committee. She could also write to the PCT forum concerning the NHS element of the multi-disciplinary assessment. The scrutiny committee discusses the delayed discharge and agrees that it is very unfortunate that the council's cabinet decided to cut the social services budget. It will make a report to that effect. It does not have time to consider the issue of multi-disciplinary assessment as its work programme is over-committed.
The relatives are thoroughly dissatisfied, but they have no redress against the scrutiny committee for its refusal to consider these matters, although, of course,
1186
I suspect that they will vote against their local council in the next election. In the meantime, the exhausted daughter is becoming increasingly concerned about the council's residential home and the inappropriate care given to her mother. She seeks out the independent advocacy service provided by the patients' council. The advocate is employed by the local authority, either directly or through the patients' council. The advocate is clearly nervous about giving even informal advice about the local authority issue as his contract is held by the local authority. In addition, he has no remit over the care sector. The complaint process continues for 18 months and the relatives finally give up.
Noble Lords will agree that this is a monolithic labyrinthine system compared with our present system—a one-stop shop, locally-based, accessible and known to the local community, with statutory powers. The Government are proposing three sets of PALS, three different forums, a patients' council, a local authority scrutiny committee and an independent advocacy service.
At the moment, Mrs Archibald's daughter could deal with one body which is able to handle all aspects of the problem except the quality of care in the residential home. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and has not been addressed in the Bill. Within CHCs lines of accountability are very clear. In these proposals there is an inbuilt conflict of Interest between the non-executive appointees to the trust board and their loyalties to the forum. Even the Institute of Directors questions how corporate responsibility can work with this half-baked system. Furthermore, as Elizabeth Manero is quoted as saying in this week's Health Service Journal, the independent advocacy service, if commissioned by local authorities as suggested in the Bill, ensures a conflict of interest between representing users of joint health and local authority services.
CHCs have been seriously unpopular with the Secretary of State, but were lavishly praised by the Prime Minister. When the CHCs celebrated their 25th anniversary the Prime Minister's agent wrote:
"Tony would certainly like to add his congratulations to the work the CHCs have done over the last 25 years and wishes them every success in the future".
Those are odd words to choose when signing a death warrant.
And the Secretary of State continues to plot that death sentence. The truth is that the CHCs hold the truth— how it really is—and the Government cannot bear the criticism.
As Donna Covey, the director of ACHEW, in an article by Anthony Browne, the health editor of the Observer, said:
"Getting rid of the CHCs will not get rid of the problems for the NHS, but it might make them more difficult to detect".
She is right. In all public services we need a regulator, an independent scrutineer to detect the problems. It is right that they should carry out surveys of trolley waits, waiting times for out-patients' appointments, dirty kitchens and so on, but the big picture is often gleaned from the individual complaint.

1187
It was complaints to the CHC which brought to light events at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, and the situation of Mr Rodney Ledwood, Harold Shipman and others. An article in The Times headed "Complaint by patient uncovered list scandal". which appeared last Saturday, stated:
"A telephone call from one disgruntled patient led … investigators to discover the waiting list scandal at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. The patient was fed up at hearing official claims that only a handful of patients nationally were waiting longer than 18 months for treatment".
That is the point. Every government are prone to exaggeration of their achievements. Claims are made and when probed turn out to be somewhat fragile. A complainant needs the confidence that there is an independent body which will not only take up his complaint but will piece complaints together to build a big picture.
Finally, it is surprising that the General Medical Council, the BMA and other professional bodies have been championing the retention of CHCs. One might think that they were an irritant to such bodies. That is not so. They recognise that CHCs, with their coherent and comprehensive role, are a safeguard to maintaining quality in clinical care locally and, with the establishment of a national body to which we shall come later in the debate, nationally, in providing the big picture.
I strongly support the amendments put forward by my noble friend. They aim to bring the system together in order to be coherent, to be more joined up and to give patients a chance to understand the complaints system and to have confidence that it will be really effective.
Lord Weatherill: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said about the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As the Committee may know, I represented the Borough of Croydon for many years and I have been urged by Croydon Council to participate in this debate. I shall do so briefly because I am not the kind of expert in these matters that the noble Baroness is.
What has been said is absolutely right. The amendments would give continuity to the present system, in contrast to what the noble Baroness said about the various other bodies that would be involved if the Government have their way in this matter. Croydon Council recently passed a unanimous resolution. My contribution will be to read it to the Committee. It states:
"This Council is proud of the way that the Croydon Community Health Council provides a strong and independent voice for the people of Croydon on NHS matters and is proud of the way that the CHC carries out its functions as the local watchdog. This Council judges that the involvement of an independent watchdog role is essential in helping the Council undertake its proposed new responsibility for scrutiny of the NHS and in adding cohesion to. and commanding public confidence in, other initiatives proposed in the NHS Plan. This Council encourages the Healthy Croydon partnership to include the expertise of the present CHC in developing a future model of health scrutiny and patient advocacy in Croydon".
1188
I suspect that that resolution, if not passed by other councils, will be equally strongly felt by them. It is in that spirit that I warmly support this group of amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with every word said by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who served with distinction in the Department of Health and therefore knows far more than I do about this matter. I hope that the Minister will take note of what she said and will perhaps be influenced by it.
We are in a slightly awkward position. I make no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but we are discussing an amendment which suggests that the community health councils should be given extra powers. Later in the Bill, however, community health councils are to be abolished. I should like to ask the Minister two questions. I hope that his answers will be fairly specific. What have community health councils done wrong? I do not include under the heading of "wrong" becoming a thorn in the flesh of Ministers. Ministers frequently deserve and fully earn the painful injection of a thorn in the flesh. I would not object to that. I want to know what the Government hold against community health councils, apart from the fact that they are a source of inconvenience to themselves. What I am driving at is that I do not believe that causing inconvenience to Ministers is necessarily or indeed at all a cardinal sin.
The Bill is in such a muddle that I do not know the correct order in which to take matters. In dealing with the abolition of community health councils, we have left on one side for a moment the question of scrutiny committees. The very thought of scrutiny committees, directed by Ministers, is a source of horror to me. I very much suspect that, like many such committees, they will consist of a mixture of people whose time would probably be better used elsewhere and people with nothing better to do elsewhere who find themselves on yet another committee.
I do not claim the knowledge of my noble friend, but I am chairman of two charitable trusts. As such, I fairly frequently go to hospitals and universities. In both I hear the same lament—that there is too much bureaucracy and too many committees. I do not see in the Bill any remedy to that. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that not long ago I asked a Question. It was a very unfair question. I asked the noble Lord how many committees were sitting under the aegis of the National Health Service. Very reasonably, the noble Lord said that he did not know. No blame is attached to him for that. My Question was the height of optimism. The only thing that could have been slightly worse would have been to ask him to say how many grains of sand there are on a piece of sea shore. Somewhat naturally, the noble Lord gave the very honest answer that he had not the slightest idea. I urged him then to get out his gun and shoot a few of them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Lord recalls, I offered to set up a committee to see whether we could find out the number of committees.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: If the noble Lord had been prepared to arm that committee with penal and terrible powers, I would have supported him.
I have two questions. First, why are the Government displeased with community health councils? Secondly, is it the intention—this is my suspicion—that in future scrutiny committees will be asked to fill the role now carried out by community heath councils? I should be grateful for answers to those two questions.
Lord Rea: With this group of amendments and his introduction to them, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has given us an opportunity to canter around all the various successor bodies that it is proposed will follow the CHCs. Grouped together, the amendments begin to provide a rational framework as to how they should relate to each other. I hope that my noble friend has given them serious scrutiny.
I very much commend the linking of the functions of the independent advocacy services with the patients' councils so that the councils can learn the lessons that come from patients' complaints to the advocacy services. Similarly, at a lower level, the patients' forums will be able to pick out from the trusts—even perhaps liaising with the PALS—some of the more local complaints and feed them up to the patients' councils themselves. I hope that that will fulfil many of the functions presently undertaken by the CHCs. As we come to later amendments, we shall be able to examine this in more detail. However, I believe that this general framework provides an extremely good start.
5 p.m
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Great concern has been expressed that the patients' forums and councils will not be independent of the health trusts. To feel comfortable, patients or their representatives need to be totally independent, as should the members of any body representing patients. At the moment, CHCs can delay the closure of hospitals rather in the same way that the House of Lords can delay legislation. I should like to ask the Minister this: can the bodies being proposed by the Government delay hospital closures?
I feel that the Government should build on CHCs to make them more effective. Sometimes patients need easy access to help and advice. They need to know where to go without the risk of confusion. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there should be an overall watchdog for all patients, NHS or private.
The Government's proposals here look very fragmented. That is just what patients do not need. We should seek to avoid confusion and fragmentation. Surely, this is something that, with the goodwill of the Minister, we can get right in your Lordships' House.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested to my noble friend Lord Hunt that the reason why the Government have proposed the abolition of the CHCs is that they had failed to live up to their early promise in 1974. However, I have to say that I am not clear about exactly what was that early
1190
promise. If one reads the documents produced at the time, it is clear that, as the concept of community health councils was being created—the aim was to reintroduce a level of democracy into the health service because the then government had removed great chunks of it during that year's reorganisation—bright civil servants thought of many new duties which could be given to the new bodies.
The reality was that CHCs were created as a hotch-potch of powers and responsibilities, none really worked through. Interestingly, a parallel can be drawn with some of the proposals before us in that it is clear that an incremental approach was then adopted as regards what CHCs should do, just as the proposals before us today have grown considerably from those originally contained in the NHS Plan. However, the result of that difficult beginning for community health councils—here I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Hunt was one of the foundation CHC chief officers at the time—is that a series of problems was inherent in the operation of those bodies.
First, although CHCs were more independent than the proposed PALS might be, they were not truly independent of the local health authority structure. I hope that, during the course of our debates in your Lordships' House, it will be possible to ensure that whatever is brought forward to replace CHCs is given genuine independence from the local NHS structure.
Secondly, concerns were expressed about resources. I can recall reading a report on CHCs which described them as bodies comprising one man and a dog. The expression was decried at the time for being rather sexist. Perhaps more pejoratively, they were described in terms of, "How many times can you re-use a teabag?". That indicates the extent to which resources were limited. Over time, successive governments have made available rather more resources to CHCs, but in reality an enormous expectation has been placed on what CHCs could achieve without necessarily providing the resources to ensure that such expectations could be met.
However, the biggest weakness here, and perhaps the reason why successive governments have considered this problem—we should be clear that over the past 20 years, successive governments have considered the abolition of CHCs—is the fact that no proper mechanism was built into the legislation concerning the quality control and performance management of CHCs. As a consequence, a wide variation has grown up in the way in which CHCs interpret their role and the quality of the work they undertake. That is a strong reason why a number of people, including myself when I was the director of the Association of Community Health Councils, acknowledged that it was important to reform the CHCs and to develop their role in addressing relevant issues.
It is clear that widespread dissatisfaction was felt both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere with the initial proposals that emerged from the NHS Plan. However, major developments have taken place and the Bill now before noble Lords is nearly there in terms

1191
of addressing some of those issues. That is why I have some difficulty with this group of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledged, we have in effect an à la carte menu of ways in which the problems in relation to CHCs or the Government's proposals might be addressed. Indeed, while listening to the noble Lord's speech, it was difficult to work out exactly which of his à la carte amendments he was interested in pursuing and which had been added merely as fallbacks in the event of, say, the first 15 proposals failing for one reason or another.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord made certain key points, one of which was that it is essential that the principle of independent advocacy, properly made available to the public, should be enshrined in the Bill. That is entirely consistent with the general objectives set out in the NHS Plan. But the manner in which the proposals are presently contained in the Bill, following amendments made in another place, does not make it absolutely certain that such independent advocacy arrangements will, in practice, be independent of the local trust or the local service. That must be remedied, whichever of the à la carte amendments is favoured or in terms of whatever response to the debate will be made in due course by my noble friend.
I believe that it would make sense for those independent advocacy arrangements to fall within the ambit of the new patients' councils. That is important because one of the main strengths of CHCs has been their ability to draw from their experience, based on the wide range of functions they perform, and to learn the lessons. They have learnt both from their advocacy work and from their complaints work. For that reason, it would be extremely sad if the independent advocacy arrangements to be put in place do not permit the learning of lessons from cases being pursued, so that those results can be applied elsewhere in the health service.
We need to address one other point: the question of independence. During the debate on Second Reading, I referred to the strange position of the staff of CHCs. We have an opportunity, during our discussions on these amendments and other amendments later this evening, to address precisely that question. We must ensure that we do not put in place the strange situation where staff are seen as accountable at a local level to the local health service. Furthermore, the question of resources needs to be taken away from the local decision-making process. It needs to be seen as something that will not be dependent on whether the CHC or patients' council—or whatever body is finally agreed on—has offended local NHS managers.
Major changes were made to the Government's proposals in another place. First came the specific proposal to set up a patients' council in all areas. That clearly signals the need to build a structure which is at least as good as, if not better than, the existing arrangements. The second change was the introduction of the clause about independent advocacy, which, as I said earlier, is nearly there but not quite enshrined. There is a lack of clarity, and that is why changes need to be made.
1192
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who spoke about the worthy Mrs Archibald and her problems, suggested that what we have before us today was not thought through initially and is still not thought through. We have the opportunity in this debate and in considering the amendments to make sure that the system is integrated; that it works better than the existing arrangements through CHCs; that it is genuinely independent; and that it provides a seamless service for members of the public who wish to make complaints.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is wrong to suggest that Mrs Archibald's family would have to pursue these matters through a number of patients' forums, through the independent scrutiny committee on the local authority and through the patients' council. We need to make sure that the arrangements for individuals who have complaints and concerns that they want to pursue are seamless. We must make sure that the final proposals which emerge from the Committee address all of those questions and that the arrangements are seen to be independent and properly resourced and enable members of the public to be satisfied that they will get a seamless service.
Ultimately, we must make sure that the lessons learnt from those cases and the lessons learnt by members of the patients' forums and the patients' council are properly utilised so that we end up with an NHS which is better because of the interventions of those bodies. That is a prize we can achieve. In going through these amendments—it is unfortunate that they are grouped together in this way—we can pick out the various elements and ensure that they are addressed.
The Earl of Listowel: I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Speaking as a volunteer, I decry the way in which the community health councils—which are mostly staffed by volunteers—seem to have been treated by the Government. The perception is that they have been abruptly discarded without consultation or consideration. I have other reasons for supporting the amendments, which I shall come to as we proceed. At this point, I simply state that involving community health councils in the new arrangements—for instance, giving them charge of the independent advocacy service—would be a good way to recognise the work of volunteers and staff in the past. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been taken as a debate on the principle surrounding the abolition of community health councils and the arrangements that we seek to put in place to provide an enhanced mechanism for public involvement and representation in the National Health Service.
My noble friend referred to my background in community health councils when they started back in 1974–75. It was an exciting time because the NHS was not used to the concept of user or patient involvement. My noble friend is right. Some of the community

1193
health services which were previously run by democratic local government were brought over for the National Health Service to run. Certainly my experience in those first two years was quite exciting in terms of developing this new concept, of seeing the impact that it had on the culture of the NHS—community health councils were quite a culture shock for the health service—and, importantly from my point of view, of encouraging the NHS to think rather more than it ever had before about how the delivery of its services impacted on individual members of the public.
I have no hesitation in saying that the work of CHCs over those 27 years has been positive; that people have been helped; and that the NHS has been encouraged to start to look at changing its culture. But, at the end of the day, can we absolutely say, in 2001, that the NHS is sufficiently patient and public orientated? Can we really say that it is a health service which really deals with issues and complaints as immediately as it ought? The record is that we still face many issues and challenges in attempting to make the NHS as user and public friendly as possible.
I fully accept that there is a choice. Is it better to reform and change CHCs—I certainly pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did at the ACHCEW in establishing a fundamental review of CHCs—or is it better to produce a new and better system of patient involvement and representation? The decision that the Government have quite clearly made is that we want to start to build a new system.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked what CHCs had done wrong. Had they been too inconvenient to Ministers? No, that is not the purpose of the changes. We are making the changes because we believe that what will come through will be a much more powerful public involvement in the National Health Service and that the National Health Service itself will have many more incentives to change and improve the way in which it delivers services to the public. That is the test on which these proposals should be based.
If we go back to the NHS Plan and the widespread public consultation that we held, there is no doubt that we had a lot of comments coming back saying that the NHS was poor at dealing with complaints on the spot; that people did want the option of independent advocacy to support patients wishing to make formal complaints against the NHS; and that they did want to have an input and influence over local decisions about NHS services. It is my contention that the proposals we are putting before the Committee will enable us to do that more effectively than community health councils.
I suspect that Mrs Archibald will be with us for quite some time today. I do not believe that it is possible to say that under the current arrangements Mrs Archibald would be well served. Surely it is a reflection of the problem of getting the NHS sufficiently user conscious and involved that the noble Baroness was able to raise this example. I agree that the new arrangements need to be able to deal with the
1194
kind of issues that Mrs Archibald faces; I believe that they will do so in the first place when it comes to patient advocacy and liaison services.
This is an exciting proposal: a new, trust-based, front-of-house customer service for patients and their families. I came across this kind of service in the US some 15 years ago. There are compelling reasons why we need it in the NHS as soon as possible. The record of the NHS is that very often people come into hospital or into our community health services and find that there are problems. However, they feel inhibited from raising them or they raise them only through a formal complaint some weeks later. If we had a mechanism which enabled us to deal with those kinds of issues on the spot as they arise, surely we would have a much more effective healthcare system. That is what PALS is all about and why we are implementing PALS from April this year, starting with the major hospitals and rolling out the service during the year to cover all NHS and primary care trusts. It will be a new core service for trusts. It will guide people through the system, provide information about the services of the trust, and help to resolve problems as they happen rather than after the event.
As part of that service, PALS staff will have direct access to the chief executive of a trust, with the ability to facilitate the swift resolution of problems. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of that. The people who are charged with trying to sort out problems as they arise will have access to the top management of an organisation.
But it will not always be appropriate for PALS to be the body that deals with patient complaints. Clearly, some people—perhaps after dealing with PALS, and others who may not wish to use PALS at all—will feel much more comfortable with independent help. That takes us to Clause 17, which places a new duty on the Secretary of State to arrange the provision of independent advocacy.
We have not been prescriptive about who should provide that advocacy. We want as much flexibility as possible, and we want to build on many of the excellent advocacy arrangements that already exist throughout the country. What is not in doubt is our assurance that this will be an effective, independent service, and one that will be able to deal with the different issues raised by Mrs Archibald.
At trust level, we are also setting up patients' forums. They will be the local route into the decision-making processes for patients and the public. They will be made up of patients, carers and representative organisations through a process that will be agreed by the independent NHS Appointments Commission. In addition, these patient forums will be able to appoint a member to the trust board to which they relate. That will give a voice to patients at the top level of their local national health service.
Again, I make the point that patient forums will be independent. They will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the services to which they relate. They will also have a duty to seek the views of patients and carers in their area and will report them to the local

1195
NHS trusts. They will be able to make recommendations to NHS bodies about services, basing these on an inspection of services that they have conducted and what they have heard from people who use those services.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, accused me of wanting to proliferate patient forums. But surely this is the whole benefit: for every NHS trust there will be a patient forum which will be able to bring the concerns of patients to the attention of senior managers and the trust board. Because those forums are basing themselves on the services of a particular trust, they will be able to focus very much on the concerns of patients using those services. That will be a great advance. It will enable forums to exercise a great deal of influence over the NHS.
In addition, another key role of the forum will be to report on how the NHS is fulfilling its duty under Clause 11, dealing with arrangements for consultation and the involvement of patients, their carers and representative organisations in the decisions that the NHS makes and in proposals for changes in the way in which services are provided.
I understand and hear the concern that because patients' forums will relate to each individual trust they might become isolated and might not relate to patients' experience across the range of local health services. I certainly accept that there is a need to co-ordinate the work of patients' forums to ensure that they take what might be described in the jargon as a "whole systems" view of services for patients.
That is why we accepted an amendment on patients' councils in another place. These are made up of members from each of the local patients' forums. The council will make reports to the health authority, to trusts, to the local authorities and to their overview scrutiny committees. Their role will help the forums to co-ordinate their work, to share experience and to consider the views of patients across the range of services. They could even provide independent advocacy services and will certainly be consulted on the best arrangements for providing independent advocacy in their local area. To make all this work in a co-ordinated way, the patients' council will share a secretariat with local patients' forums, strengthening their links.
This is a real and useful role for patients' councils. However, I do not believe that it supersedes the role of the patient forum. We see the patients' forum as having the crucial relationship, bringing the NHS and patients together. The patients' council will necessarily have a more distant relationship. It will deal with many trusts and will take an interest particularly in the health authority's strategic decision-making process.
That is why I do not find myself in sympathy with amendments which seek to make the patients' council the pre-eminent body for representing patients, with the forums as sub-committees. I believe that it is much better that the key body in all these arrangements at local level is that of the forums, which are very much based at the patient care level. The patients' council
1196
can pull together views and can co-ordinate the forums, but the forums themselves should be the key building blocks.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked me to discuss overview and scrutiny committees, and we shall debate amendments on the subject in due course. They provide another piece of the jigsaw. It has always been a criticism of the NHS that at local level it has had what has sometimes been described as a democratic deficit. It is often proposed, particularly by local authorities, that the NHS should be run by them so that decisions may be made through the ballot box, legitimised by local councils.
Governments of both parties have always rejected that proposal because of the essential national nature of the National Health Service. But there is no doubt that local government has an important role to play, both in putting forward views about the health service and in ensuring good co-operation between the NHS and local government.
The overview and scrutiny committees will be committees of the principal local authority in an area. They are consistent with what is happening in local government generally in the establishment of such committees to monitor the normal local authority provision. I believe that they will be very powerful in ensuring that what happens in the NHS is very much open to public scrutiny and examination by local authority councillors. If one were looking for an example of where the proposals we are placing before the House are much more powerful than those that currently exist, that is surely it.
The test of all these proposals is whether, at the end of the day, there will be more effective patient and user representation within the NHS at local level. I have no hesitation in believing that the answer to that is yes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him about delaying the closure of hospitals. Will any of these bodies be able to do this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I apologise to the noble Baroness for not responding to the specific point that she raised. The role of community health councils in relation to major changes in services will be transferred to the overview and scrutiny committee of the local authority. If a proposal for a major change is made with which the overview and scrutiny committee disagrees, it will be referred to a panel, or an advisory committee, that we are establishing at national level called the national reconfiguration committee, which will then make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Therefore, in essence, the new local authority overview and scrutiny committee will have that responsibility in the future.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would those at national level know the nature of local needs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: At present, if a CHC objects to a major service change, such an objection is

1197
referred directly to the Secretary State. The new provision will establish an advisory committee to enable the Secretary of State to receive the advice of experts on such a proposal before he reaches a decision on the matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps I may intervene before my noble friend sits down. He started his response by giving us a fairly lengthy account of the strength of PALS. I am well aware that my noble friend has been a long-term advocate of such arrangements. However, does he accept that the PALS arrangements, which, I am sure will be a very valuable part of "customer relations" for a local trust, are not the same as independent advocacy?
I believe that my noble friend said that it would not always be appropriate for the body dealing with patients' complaints to be the PALS. I am quite worried by those remarks. I should be grateful if my noble friend could further clarify them. We must be quite clear that the handling of complaints, and advising and supporting complainants, must be independent of the trust concerned.
My noble friend also said that the Government did not wish to be prescriptive about who should provide advocacy. Would my noble friend think it appropriate to place some residual duty on the patients' councils to satisfy themselves that appropriate advocacy arrangements are in place and are strong enough so that, if they are not satisfactory, the patients' council can provide the service?
My further point relates to the relationship between patients' councils and patients' forums. My noble friend said that patients' councils should not be pre-eminent in terms of patient representation at local level. I believe him to be wrong in that respect. Given the fact that my noble friend has acknowledged that there is a danger that patients' forums might be subject to isolation—indeed, almost subject to "agency capture", which I think is the jargon for it—can he tell us what form the arrangements will take? Who will be responsible for the performance management of patients' forums, who will set the budgets for them, and who will appoint and manage their staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: As we are in Committee, I should point out that there is absolutely no reason to worry about whether or not the Minister has sat down.
I do not believe that I explained myself adequately when I spoke a short while ago. I am concerned with the ever-lasting business of inspection and scrutiny. Patients are mainly concerned with the ability of doctors and nurses to get them better. They are not so concerned with the cogs of administration. I hope that those at the sharp end of the NHS will not find themselves too much tortured by a machinery of complaints that requires them to spend an inordinate
1198
amount of time protecting themselves against all kinds of contingencies, and every possible complaint, no matter how unreasonable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the noble Lord's concern; and, indeed, I have some sympathy with it. At the end of day, we need to have a proper complaints system, as well as a health service that is sensitive to the needs of the public and patients. That is the purpose of many of the Bill's mechanisms. Equally, if by prompt action—this is where the PALS come in—we can deal with problems as they arise, it may well mean that patients do not always wish to go through a formal complaints process because the problem has been resolved.
However, if patients wish to go through a proper complaints process, I can reassure my noble friend that the options will be open to them in the future, as they have been in the past: they can go directly through a formal complaints system, or, if they wish to have help to do so, they can go directly to the independent patients' advocacy service. There is no question about that. I believe that the PALS service will provide a very straightforward and easy route in many cases, thereby allowing problems to be put right as soon as possible.
My noble friend also asked about the secretariat for the patients' forum and the patients' council. Some of these issues will need to be developed because neither the forum nor the council will be able to employ staff directly. We shall need to find a mechanism through which such staff can be employed. That is not unusual because CHCs have found themselves in the same position. The intention is that the funding will come from the Secretary of State through regional offices. I do not believe that I can reassure my noble friend that I have a robust system of performance management at my finger tips. However, we shall be debating a number of these issues later. I can tell him that we shall wish to support the patient council and the forum and that we shall enable them to be as effective as possible in their work. Some of the work carried out by my noble friend in that area would be apposite to that aim.
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not want this Committee stage to be haunted by my fictitious patient, but the Minister said he felt that she would not be served well in the current situation. I should like the noble Lord to explore that comment. We need to know exactly what we are jettisoning, and what we are gaining in its place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The litany of failure outlined by the noble Baroness was a breakdown both in terms of services provided by different parts of the NHS and in terms of co-ordination between them. I should point out to the noble Baroness that there are examples of that happening at present. The existence of CHCs per se does not seem to me to have had an impact on the situation. Under the new arrangements, it is important to note that when, for example, the relatives of Mrs Archibald confront a problem they would have an avenue through which to raise it

1199
immediately. However, if that is not effective, there would be a way to ensure that all the different issues with which they have problems would be dealt with.
In the first instance, PALS comes into play in dealing with problems as they arise. However, if that does not work out and if, say, Mrs Archibald's relatives decide to go through a formal complaints process, that would undoubtedly be co-ordinated by seeking the help of the independent advocacy service.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I shall not make the mistake again of saying that I wish to comment before my noble friend sits down. Perhaps I may clarify a few points about independent advocacy. Clause 13(3)(c) refers to patients' councils carrying out,
"such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services)".
I presume that that will enable the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to contract with the patients' councils providing independent advocacy services. However, in the light of what my noble friend said, can he say whether he expects that to be the normal arrangement—namely, to contract with the patients' councils to provide those services—or whether he expects that to be the exception to the rule?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is very difficult at this stage to say what will happen in practice. It is clear that the independent advocacy services could be provided in the way suggested; alternatively, they could be provided by another public organisation. Indeed, they could even be provided by a voluntary organisation. It is important to ensure that we have a robust, independent and effective service for the public. Of course, that responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. But before making any arrangements he will need to consult any relevant patients' council and such other persons as he considers appropriate. Whatever the arrangements are for the provision of those services, there will be an opportunity for patients' councils to express their views.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Would it not surely be better for the patients' council with local knowledge to have the residual responsibility for deciding where the contract should be placed locally to provide the most effective service for local people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Given the importance of ensuring that there is an effective service of consistent high quality throughout the country, that responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I make one final point on a slightly separate issue. My noble friend said that he did not think it was possible at this stage to have a robust performance management system for patients' forums. I have some sympathy with that view. However, can we be clear that he accepts the principle that the performance management of patients' forums and, for that matter, patients' councils, must be independent of the local health service? If that is not
1200
the case a successful patients' forum and a successful patients' council may well be considered to be the one that gives the quietest life to local health service managers. However, it might well be argued that a more effective patients' forum or patients' council would sometimes give local health service managers a difficult time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the point that my noble friend makes. That is why I emphasised the support that should be given to patients' councils and patients' forums when they are established to ensure that they do their job properly and to ensure that there is exchange of good practice between different parts of the country to enable them to draw on the best practice available.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister, who is an expert, sounded rather confused just now as to who to approach. I just wonder how on earth the poor patients will be able to find a way through the network.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that I sounded confused. The matter is very straightforward. If you go into a hospital and there is a problem in the outpatients department, you will have immediate access to the patient advocacy and liaison service within the relevant trust. I hope that that will sort out the problem there and then. However—
Baroness Cumberlege: Even at night?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course, we shall have to make arrangements to ensure that there is access to patient advocacy and liaison services. That is an issue and a challenge to which every trust will have to face up. If that does not work out, or if an individual does not want to use PALS because he or she feels that it is more appropriate to make a formal complaint, the system will operate as now. He or she will make a complaint and that will be dealt with through the formal process. At the moment if someone seeks assistance, he or she can approach the community health council. In the future if someone seeks assistance to make a complaint, he or she can approach the independent advocacy service. As I say, I believe that the matter is straightforward. The individual will be given more leverage and power than he or she has had hitherto.
Lord Clement-Jones: This has been an extremely useful and important debate, as was demonstrated by the fact that so many Members of the Committee took part in it. The more Members of the Committee gave examples and teased out situations where certain provisions might come into effect, the more the doubts in my mind (which were already considerable) grew. Certainly those who have spoken have been sceptical about those provisions, to say the least.
The amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and myself seek to join up the disjointed. I believe that the story of Mrs Archibald will live on

1201
in folk memory. It illustrated the situation well. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, valiantly tried to illustrate that the CHCs did not have the help and assistance that it appears that some of the new services to be established under the Bill will have. The budget of the CHCs is something in the order of £20 million at present. The budget required by the new services may he over £100 million. That is outrageous. How effective could they have been if they had had the necessary powers? Will Hutton's commission on the health service—it was sponsored partly by ACHCEW—concluded that CHCs had inadequate powers.
There is not a great deal between us in terms of agreeing an effective outcome but there is a great difference between us in terms of mechanics. I fully accept that the amendments are rather à la carte, but we have given the Minister a chance to select out of that à la carte menu the provisions that he might consider attractive or at least those which fit in with his general approach. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that the table d'hôte will come later if we are permitted a Report stage.
However, I am disappointed in the Minister's response. He said that we were debating a matter of principle. I disagree. As I made absolutely clear, we are debating the details of the powers and the joining-up of the different bodies. The Minister showed no willingness to effect more joining-up than has been evident heretofore. The Minister is aware of the need to be as public and patient friendly as possible and as public and patient oriented as possible—there are all kinds of different ways of saying the same thing. I am sure that we agree with that. We want more powerful public involvement in the NHS. However, we do not believe that that will be achieved at present. The Minister went into enormous detail over PALS. That demonstrates some of the difficulties. We had to clarify whether that was to be the normal way of proceeding with independent advocacy. Will patients' councils deal with that on a usual basis or an exceptional basis?
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, teased out some interesting answers from the Minister to the effect that the Government do not appear to know at the moment how the system will work. However, if the system really hung together, the Government would know how it worked. Patients' councils should be able to plug into the complaints system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not have a blueprint for saying what proportion of independent advocacy services might be run by patients' councils in the future or might be run by other voluntary organisations as decisions have to be made as to what circumstances suit every locality. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. In fulfilling that responsibility he will seek the views of local patients' councils. Surely that comprises the taking account of local circumstances for which the Committee has asked.
The Earl of Listowel: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will forgive me for interrupting
1202
him. However, what if a mother who does not speak English wishes to access the independent advocacy service? She tries to call NHS Direct but there is not an Urdu speaker to hand. Under the old system she would be able to go to the CHC—the shop front—with her child who perhaps can speak English and gain access to whatever service she needs. How will her need be met under the new system?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is interesting to note that the noble Earl assumes that in those circumstances every CHC in the country will be instantly accessible and able to respond to those demands. I think that that is most unlikely. With the availability of NHS Direct, and efficient, independent advocacy services, where the views of the patients' councils expressed to the Secretary of State that certain services need to be included are taken into account, one is more likely to have a mechanism for responding to those demands than at present.
The Earl of Listowel: I am sorry to persevere. Perhaps I have not understood the Minister correctly. It seems to me easier for a person to go to an office, perhaps with someone who can speak the English language, than for him to contact a disembodied person at the end of a telephone line in order to gain access to a service. However, perhaps I misunderstood the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that there are four CHCs in Birmingham. Does the noble Earl seriously suggest that it is easier to find those offices, in a city of about a million people, than to have direct access to NHS Direct and then contact with an independent advocacy service?
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister. I shall consider what he says. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the issue later.
Lord Clement-Jones: In many respects, that illustrates clearly the total difference between the mindset of those who tabled the amendments on this part of the Bill and that of the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health. To me, local decision making involves local decision making: a patients' council has the ability to determine the kind of independent advocacy services it wishes to run, subcontract, commission and so on. To the Minister, it is the Secretary of State, with perhaps some consultation with the patients' council. That is decentralisation. It is extraordinary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not wish to prolong this debate. I am sure that we could carry on all night on these issues. The point is this. At present, support for the public in making complaint is too variable and patchy. Therefore, the Secretary of State needs to take the power to ensure that a consistent, high quality, independent advocacy service is available throughout the National Health Service. However, in doing so, he

1203
will take account of the views of local organisations, including patients' councils. Surely that is a sensible approach which involves the best of both worlds.
Lord Clement-Jones: We shall have to differ on that. The Minister's view is that no action is good unless the Secretary of State takes it himself. That seems an extraordinary view. Aneurin Bevan warned against the rattle of bedpans in the Department of Health. We are now faced with that situation. It seems extraordinarily centralist.
I warn the Minister that during its next stages these Benches will judge the Bill on whether it is clear where independent advocacy lies, or whether patients' councils and patients' forums have sufficient independence. The Minister asserted the independence but I have not seen chapter and verse of it.
The Minister made a virtue of proliferation of the various forums. However, he then said that they might become isolated. Why do we not cure that problem before it arises rather than building in mechanisms in case those bodies become isolated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: A moment ago the noble Lord accused me of being over-centralist. With the patients' forum we are placing the key responsibility for patient involvement at NHS trust level. The noble Lord seeks to move that to a patient council which is one level removed from the patient.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister knows his constitution. Having considered centralisation or federalism, he knows that the great trick about devolution is to ensure that decisions are taken at the appropriate level with the right mechanism. We believe that the most coherent point at which that can be done is at the patients' council level. It can then be the coordinating factor. If we are not careful, patients' forums will lead to forum shopping. The experience of Mrs Archibald, cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was telling.
I do not disagree with the Minister's aim regarding more effective patient and user representation. Indeed, we shall probably quote those words back at him when judging whether or not the Bill meets that criterion. We shall consider the total package. If it does not meet what we believe are necessary criteria, we shall act accordingly in later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Functions of overview and scrutiny committees]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 16, after "section," insert "the strategy for health improvement and action to address health inequalities"
The noble Lord said: The posture of suspended disbelief probably applies as much to this part of the Bill, which precedes the provisions on the patients' council, as to the previous amendments. We wish to test whether the Minister is flexible about the way in which scrutiny will operate.
My local government colleagues in the party believe that these scrutiny provisions may work. As the Minister pointed out, the overview and scrutiny committee has become a central plank of the way in which local government now operates. With the institution of cabinet government at local government level, it is a different animal from a few years ago. Nevertheless, some issues need to be resolved. I suggest that conflict of interest may well need to be resolved as these scrutiny powers take hold.
However, I wish to note a few key gaps in the powers of the overview and scrutiny committees. Amendments Nos. 37 and 53 deal with overview of strategy for health improvement. That is an important area. The issue of making information available to patients' councils arises from scrutiny. CHCs were able to take a view about a pattern of behaviour or circumstances which informed the way in which they did their job. It is important to have that link between scrutiny and patient representation, and patients' complaints and patient advocacy.
The committees should be able to refer to other NHS bodies such as CHI and NICE, and to set up local inquiries. There should be the ability to co-opt observers from patients' forums on to scrutiny committees. Above all, there should be procedural standards for the scrutiny committees. That seems to be one of the weakest areas. It is important to have transparency about the operations of the committees. We need to know, for instance, whether the party whip will operate in these circumstances. I understand that planning committees have clear guidelines about the use of the party whip. I believe that it would be wrong for the party whip to operate where scrutiny of the local health service takes place. These are important additional issues which need to be dealt with. In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 41, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51 and 53. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Howe: Clause 7 is the first in a series of clauses that give effect to the arrangements outlined in the NHS Plan to introduce better local accountability for health services and to enhance the voice of patients and the general public. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I still hold the view that I expressed on Second Reading that the arrangements are a mish-mash, despite everything that he has said on the previous group of amendments. I cannot make complete sense of the Bill as it stands. The Minister may be able to illuminate some of the dark corners of the Bill as we proceed, but I doubt that he can dispel my concerns entirely. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I shall wish to return to these matters with vigour.
I hold that view because Ministers have approached the issue from the wrong direction. They have asked what structures might be invented to perform certain functions, whereas they should have asked what they were trying to achieve. The end result is a pile of structures. It was seven at the last count, although

1205
someone has told me that it might be nine if we include bodies such as the Secretary of State's reconfiguration panel.
Let me restate our objective. It is to examine the structures that the Bill proposes, look at what they are intended to do and then suggest ways of rationalising them so that they are more user-friendly and less bewildering than they are at the moment.
Clause 7 relates to the role of local authorities in enhancing local accountability. My problem with the idea of greater local authority involvement is not so much with the theory as with the practice. Local councillors are already stretched. They have limited time to do what they are required to do. That means that the real work on Clauses 7 and 8 will have to be done by the officers, who are already dealing with a host of other social services and health-related issues—not only the co-called Section 31 arrangements under the Health Act 1999, which permit local authorities and health bodies to collaborate, but also the arrangements adumbrated under the Bill for the formation of care trusts.
Many councils already find it difficult to fulfil their statutory child protection and adoption services in anything like a satisfactory way. In that context, the issue of resources rears its head almost immediately. Amendment No. 47 addresses that. Local authorities cannot do what the Bill asks of them unless they are given the financial wherewithal to do it. If they are not properly resourced, the whole exercise will fall down in a heap because it will not command confidence. If it does not command confidence, it will be useless. The first thing that the Minister needs to tell us is how he will ensure that this particular bird will fly. Not only do there need to be officers in place dedicated to servicing OSCs, there also need to be resources made available directly to those councillors who sit as scrutiny councillors.
Those new duties come hard on the heels of other scrutiny functions laid down in the Local Government Act 2000. Even before Part 2 of that Act has bedded down, scrutiny councillors will be required to extend their purview into non-local authority functions. That is a tall order.
The Explanatory Notes attempt to put a small amount of flesh on the bones of the clause, which is pretty skeletal by any standards. However, there are a number of important lacunae. What are OSCs there to do? If they are to count for anything, they must talk to the outside world a bit. They must talk to patient groups and, if they wish, to national bodies such as the Commission for Health Improvement and the Audit Commission. They must be able to set up local inquiries with the power to call for evidence. Those are functions that CHCs have at the moment.
The danger as the Bill is drafted is that OSCs will be cut off from everybody except the NHS. Unlike CHCs, they will not have the benefit of inspections to inform their scrutiny work, because inspections will be carried out by patients' forums. Unless patients' councils and forums have a duty to pass on relevant information, the OSCs will operate in a vacuum, or will at any rate
1206
have a very one-sided view of the world. When they have passed that information over, patients' councils should be able to call for OSCs to take action on whatever concerns they may have. All that is set out in Amendment No. 52. I expect such joined-up arrangements.
What happens once the OSC has reached a conclusion on a matter? Presumably, although the Bill does not say so, it will be able to make its views known to the local NHS body in question. When that happens, what is the NHS body obliged to do? Does it have to do anything? In Amendment No. 48, I suggest that it should.
All those matters should be the subject of advance consultation by the Secretary of State. Despite the smokescreens and bluster of various kinds, there has been no consultation on the detailed proposals for local authority functions, but there has to be consultation if the regulations are to prove work able and effective.
Amendment No. 43 relates to the effective use of time and skills. Subsection (3)(f) would require any officer of a local NHS body to attend before the committee to answer questions. My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to that provision earlier. I am worried about that on several counts. Obviously the OSC will need to be able to question the chief executive of a health authority or trust on occasions. It may also need to question other officers, but those officers cannot be made subject to the beck and call of the OSC every week of the year. The OSC is a lay panel. The officers of the health authority, trust or PCT are busy professional people. In most ordinary circumstances they must be allowed to get on with doing their job. The OSC should not consider that it has the right to summon officers of the trust willy-nilly without there being a good reason for doing so and without first being satisfied that the officer concerned can represent the trust or health authority at the most appropriate level. Even worse than summoning an officer for a trivial reason would be—I hesitate to say this—to have a scrutiny committee agenda for party political reasons rather than for the purpose of improving local NHS provision.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the tail will not be allowed to wag the dog in that sense.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the clause, because it provides an important means of strengthening the role of local government. Providing for scrutiny committees to look at the health services in an area adds to the range of oversight and scrutiny committees in local government and is a valuable part of building the community advocacy role of local government. That role is contained in proposals for local government, but this is the first tangible sign that it will affect and impinge on other public services.
I was slightly concerned about the contributions of both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I suspect that, so far as concerns

1207
this matter, they have not quite come to terms with some of the changes that are already taking place within local government.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, for example, that councillors would not be able to take on such an onerous responsibility. I believe that he may not have recognised the enormous change that is occurring within local government. A distinction is now being drawn between the, perhaps, 10 members of a local authority who will sit on a cabinet and run the local authority by carrying out the executive, decision-making functions, and the role of the remaining—perhaps 50—members of a local authority, who will be involved in scrutiny arrangements. Not only will they be concerned with what their own local authority's executive—the cabinet—is doing; they will also have responsibility for reviewing and taking a policy view of what is happening elsewhere in their area. They will act as genuine local representatives. That change in the role of most local councillors will represent a valuable part of the work that they do. It will not be squeezed out by executive responsibilities because the nature of local government work has changed.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, conjured up a fantasy that overview and scrutiny committees would be dominated by the party whip system. I appreciate that he is probably not as steeped in the rules of the Labour Party as I am. The Labour Party has adopted rules which state clearly that it is not possible to whip councillors who sit on scrutiny committees. He may be telling us that the Liberal Democrats or, for that matter, the Conservative Party allow rampant whipping to take place on scrutiny committees and that, therefore, they distort the whole operation. However, if all the major parties took the view, as the Labour Party has done, that it is not appropriate for whipping to take place, that issue would not be so serious.
Having said that, I believe that, by and large, the Government should consider seriously the amendments that have been put forward. There are risks in relation to scrutiny of the health service by local government. One such risk is that the process could be extremely antagonistic, with local authority councillors spending their time effectively attacking what takes place in the local health service and pursuing matters in relation to closures, cleanliness, waiting times, or whatever, to the exclusion of the wider picture.
That is why I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seeks to ensure that part of the scrutiny process involves the consideration of health improvement programmes, and so on, and the strategy required in that respect, is sensible. It seeks to ensure that discussions held by scrutiny bodies are focused on the wider picture and do not become antagonistic.
I believe that an approach which ensures that scrutiny committees listen to the viewpoints expressed by other agencies and call evidence—perhaps in the same way as parliamentary Select Committees are able to do—will make certain that the relationship between
1208
local authority scrutiny committees and the local health service is constructive rather than antagonistic. We should certainly all be working towards that. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider the amendments carefully and ensure that the spirit behind them is embodied in the final legislation.
The Earl of Listowel: I also welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the extra patient focus that the Government are introducing. Recently, at a Centrepoint conference, two young, homeless 20 year-olds made a presentation. What they said was far more powerful and constructive than anything said by any other contributor, including chief executives and the local mayor.
In his opening remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made clear that a balance needs to be struck between individual representation and the whole picture or the whole community. Therefore, I am concerned about what will happen to the former function of CHCs, which, to a large extent, involved reaching out to the local community and looking out for local health needs.
Therefore, I welcome the amendment and would appreciate some reassurance in the Minister's response as to how proactive the replacement for CHCs will be in reaching socially excluded groups. As an example of what CHCs have achieved in the past, perhaps I may quote from a newsletter:
"Health Action for Homeless People has had a long association with Community Health Councils. They were instrumental in establishing the organisation and managing it for many years. London CHCs in particular have an understanding of the difficulties experienced by homeless people in accessing good health care and are effective in lobbying for improved access and for good quality specialist services".
Perhaps I may give another example. At a recent meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Maternity, its members heard about research currently taking place in Islington. That research indicates that a surprisingly large number of single mothers are living in temporary accommodation and that they have very few friends. They have no contact with one another. There may well be a need for a health initiative in relation to that situation. Perhaps a local centre is required to bring the mothers together, or something along those lines. Again, I hope that the Minister will address those concerns in his response.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This large group of amendments probes the functions of local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Perhaps I may refer to the original question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He asked what we are trying to achieve. First, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, such committees are a recognition of the leadership, or advocacy, role which local authorities play in the community. In addition, their establishment recognises that the National Health Service is an important part of any local community. It is absolutely right that local authorities should wish to take a view on the progress

1209
and key decisions of the National Health Service. I believe that the committees will lead to an enhanced relationship between the NHS and local government.
Over the past 10 or 20 years we have seen the problems that arise when the NHS and local government do not work well together. In recent years, there has been a tremendous improvement in that relationship. In the winter planning undertaken over the past few months, local authorities have been absolutely vital partners in the planning and provision of services. The enthusiasm with which they took part in discussions with the NHS at local level showed a much more positive relationship than there has been for many years.
I understand the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that relationship may become adversarial and destroy the good work that has taken place. However, I believe that the scrutiny committees will lead to local authorities having a greater understanding of the issues and priorities faced in the health service. I believe that, just as importantly, they will help the NHS to understand local authorities' core issues of concern which affect the whole community.
From discussions that I have held with members of many local authorities, I understand that they welcome the proposed new role. They believe that they will have the capacity to undertake it, and they will use it as a constructive approach towards better relationships with the NHS overall.
In response to a number of amendments, perhaps I may reiterate that I believe that, in time, the committees will develop an expertise which will add value to the process of NHS scrutiny. We are providing a new function for an existing body. Therefore, the overview and scrutiny committees will continue to be bound by the procedural requirements set out in local government legislation, which is a part of the local authority's responsibility. That is why making the power in Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 is unnecessary. They will also draw on their existing resource arrangements for the funding of those OSCs.
We expect the OSCs to have a wide-ranging role and to take their own decisions as to the key areas for scrutiny in their local areas. We also intend the OSCs to have real teeth. Therefore, I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the function of referring contested service change proposals to the Secretary of State by an independent reconfiguration panel, currently with CHCs, which will pass to OSCs, will be a very important indicator of the importance of the scrutiny committees.
Clearly there will be other matters which do not come within the definition of a contested service change. But it would seem to me unlikely that the local NHS would not take account of the views expressed by the OSC on a whole range of matters.
I certainly accept that the OSCs cannot operate in a vacuum. They will have shared interests with patients' forums and patients' councils. We expect those bodies to work together locally. But it is important that we recognise that they have different functions. The OSCs are there to represent the interests of the public.
1210
Patients' forums and councils are set up to have a specific patient focus. Both perspectives are important but they are different and there is a risk of mixing the two so that one becomes drawn into—I use the noble Earl's expression—a mish-mash. It is extremely important that we clarify and separate those different roles. That is why we do not agree with the suggestion that OSCs, patients' forums and councils should be obliged to share members or that there should be formal partnership arrangements.
I have mentioned already that we want OSCs to develop their own priorities for scrutiny. I certainly agree with the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, that the local HImP and actions to address health inequalities are likely to be high on the agenda. Amendments Nos. 37 and 53 would provide specific powers to allow the Secretary of State to require OSCs to look at those issues.
I do not believe that those amendments are necessary. Those issues relate to the health service. The current regulation-making powers in the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to provide that such issues are considered. I for one should very much welcome OSCs focusing on those issues because if we are talking about health inequalities, we shall certainly not achieve all we wish to achieve unless health and local government are working together.
I turn now to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who is no longer in his place, to which the noble Earl referred; namely, the risk of tying, up the NHS in bureaucracy in responding to the information requirements or the summoning of NHS officials before the OSCs.
I understand Amendment No. 43. We anticipate requiring NHS chief executives to appear before the OSC once or twice a year. That is a reasonable requirement. We do not believe that we need further protection on the face of the Bill. I should much prefer to leave this matter to the good sense of people locally to operate sensibly. I really believe that the great majority of local authorities will behave sensibly and will call NHS officials before them when that seems appropriate but will not over-egg that and cause a huge bureaucratic burden for them.
It is worth saying that OSCs are developing ground in local government. Experience so far shows them to be effective. And so councils will not be coming to this with a fresh piece of paper. They will have had experience in operating the system.
Our proposal to make local social services authorities the lead on NHS scrutiny will certainly help to ensure effective and consistent scrutiny and will reduce the number of OSCs directly scrutinising the NHS.
I do not agree with Amendment No. 38, which would give all district councils scrutiny rights. There is a part for district councils to play in NHS scrutiny and the provisions in Clause 8 allow that to happen. But if each of the large shire counties with a large number of non-metropolitan district councils had scrutiny powers as of right, there would then indeed be the bureaucratic problem to which the noble Earl referred.

1211
We believe that the OSCs should look at all services, including those delivered in partnership with the local authority. I know that some Members of the Committee have expressed concern about that but it is worth making the point that within the OSC role within local government, that happens now in relation to scrutiny by the committee of local authority directly provided services. On those grounds, I would not support Amendment No. 56.
Amendments Nos. 46, 49 and 52 deal with the powers of OSCs to call for inquiries or involve CHI, the Audit Commission or the Secretary of State. As regards inquiries, I do not believe that it is necessary for the OSCs to be able to call inquiries, particularly not with powers to summon evidence. That would be a power on a par with that of the Secretary of State under Section 84 of the National Health Act 1977. The Bristol inquiry is an example of the use of that power. It seems to me that that is going too far. But, of course, OSCs have every right to decide what issues to look into and the right to ask people to come to give evidence.
On the submission of OSC reports and concerns to other bodies, if it is unhappy with the way that the local NHS has responded to it, the OSC will be able to refer its concerns to the Secretary of State or the regional office. I confirm also that the Commission for Health Improvement is already empowered to investigate concerns raised by other bodies so that no new powers are needed to allow CHI to respond to requests from an OSC. Therefore, those amendments are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to change "may" to "shall". That would mean that the regulations on OSCs would have to make provision for all the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (f). It may not always be appropriate, over time, to make provisions on some of those matters. In addition, the extent to which the Secretary of State would have to make such provision is unclear. So I firmly come down on the side of "may" in this debate.
However, I assure the Committee that it is our firm intention to make regulations to define fully the role of OSCs, as it is clear that regulations must be made if the scheme is to operate properly.
As regards taking account of the views of those who have an interest, we shall consider and welcome any views given to us by relevant organisations, such as the Local Government Association, before making the appropriate regulations.
Lord Smith of Leigh: Perhaps I may seek clarification on some of my noble friend's comments. While I agree with him that overview and scrutiny committees should help to strengthen the relationship between the NHS and local authorities, they should not be seen as replacing relationships which exist already between the executives of local authorities and the NHS. Those bodies deal with those matters on which my noble friend commented; for example, the problems in relation to winter planning. They will also
1212
help to develop the care trusts and so on. As my noble friend knows, in my own authority there is a well-established health partnership board which involves ourselves, the local NHS trust and the health authority. Indeed, I had to tender my apologies in relation to that today in order to attend your Lordships' Committee.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I can respond to my noble friend. I agree with the point. I was simply trying to say that I believed that overview and scrutiny committees would be but one aspect of the developing local government/NHS relationship. I certainly accept that, in terms of ensuring that collaboration and the provision of services works, including the involvement of the local authority in major NHS strategic change, the role of the executive of the local authority would be important.
Baroness Cumberlege: Much of this has merit. I understand the democratic deficit argument that has taken place for decades. Where the overview and scrutiny committees are good they will be very good; but where they are bad they will be perfectly horrid. Where there is a danger that the OSCs become a griper's charter, where they do nothing positive at all, but in fact destroy the trust and the good relationships that have built up, what action can be taken? Secondly, how will the committees be judged in relation to their performance? What criteria will be set against which they can be judged?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That must be a matter for the local authority concerned because that will be part of the scrutiny role of the local authority. The scrutiny committee will not operate on its own, but it will operate alongside a number of other scrutiny committees. I would expect the local authority—as it will when it reviews the performance of the scrutiny committees from time to time—to monitor, to review and to take account of any views that the NHS may express when considering whether any changes need to be made.
On the issue of areas where the relationship is difficult, I do not want to dwell on that too much because I am positive about the developing NHS/local government relationship. I believe that it has changed fundamentally in the past few years. Now it is rare to find a place where the relationship is as bad as those to which the noble Baroness has referred. I also believe that it takes two to tango. It is not just a matter of a local authority being excessive in its demands; it is also a matter of the NHS being prepared to share information, time and officials with the scrutiny committee to take that committee through the issues that they are debating. At the end of the day, I believe that ensuring that that works out as effectively as possible should be left to the local level.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, responds perhaps I could ask the Minister about the purview of an overview and scrutiny

1213
committee. The lines on a map that delineate the boundaries of health authorities do not always reflect real life. Will a local authority overview and scrutiny committee have powers to examine proposed health service changes in adjacent local authority areas if such proposals are thought likely to have an impact locally?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I would expect the focus of the OSC to be related to services provided within its boundaries. I accept that the NHS does not necessarily organise itself around local authority boundaries; sometimes perversely hospitals are built just within a borough boundary, and London has classic examples of that. That is why in Clause 8 we allow for regulations to make provisions for two or more local authorities to appoint a joint committee. Through those arrangements we shall be able to deal with issues such as a hospital that is on one side of a boundary providing services to those on the other side of the boundary. We would hope to deal with the general principles through regulations, but much will come down to good common sense as well.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his response to this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, lowered the tone of the debate by referring to "rampant whipping" and I confess that despite having lived in Lambeth for 30 years I had not realised what pussycats the Labour Chief Whips have become under the new regime!
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made an important point that we need to design into this set of proposals the opportunity for constructive discussion between the NHS and local government. I believe that that is the cardinal aim set out by the Minister. He referred to enhancing the relationship between the NHS and local government, that the scrutiny committees would have real teeth and that they will not operate in a vacuum.
Since 1974 there has probably been a democratic deficit in the health service that requires amendment. As I said earlier, we have suspended disbelief in relation to this matter, but if these proposals go some way towards curing that democratic deficit, they should be welcomed. The Minister was extremely tentative in his approach to some of the amendments, which is to be regretted. In some areas he was a little vague; for instance, on the ability to scrutinise health improvement plans and health improvement strategies—they were welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—which I believe would be a cardinal function, he said that the Secretary of State would have power to require overview and scrutiny committees to do so and that he, as a Minister, would welcome a focus on those issues by OSCs. To me that did not quite add up to the Minister saying, "Yes, we will definitely place a duty on and give a power to OSCs to do so". A little more clarification from the Minister would be helpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not believe that there is any doubt at all that the OSCs will have the ability
1214
to question the local health service about HImPs and their future strategies. That is the whole purpose of the committees.
Lord Clement-Jones: I assume from that that the Minister is saying that the Secretary of State will make regulations that allow them to do so and to have that as a principal part of their duties. In the Bill as currently drafted, that does not spring from the page.
Another aspect is that as we go through the Bill clause by clause at one point the Minister is a great centraliser and at another point he becomes the great decentraliser, except in relation to district councils: "We are the great decentraliser; this is the way we do things; we devolve to the lowest point and when it comes to representation it goes to patients' forums which are at the right level, close to the patient, close to the public and close to the NHS trusts and so on. But when it comes to scrutiny, I am very sorry that the ordinary district or borough council is not to be allowed anywhere near this set of proposals". On that point the Minister's response was not particularly adequate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My first experience as a member of a local authority was in Oxford, in a non-metropolitan district council. I understand why non-metropolitan district councils would want to be scrutiny committees in their own right, but perhaps I can take Kent as an example. Kent has a population of 1.3 million; it comprises 12 district councils and one unitary authority. With the best will in the world, unless the principal local authority—the social services authority—is the OSC, one would run into the kind of bureaucratic issues that have been raised by noble Lords in Committee.
Of course, there will be an ability for the county council scrutiny committee to co-opt a member of a district council; it will also be able to delegate its roles perhaps in relation to a particularly local service. However, in practical terms, I believe that it will be difficult to allow the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that extra elucidation, which was genuinely helpful. Although we found his response more unhelpful than we originally anticipated, having heard it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No, 39.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) the GLA"
The noble Lord said: Fuller amendments on a similar theme remain to be discussed in this group. In the light of the experience of Members of the

1215
Committee who have tabled them, I know that they will be most interesting and I shall therefore be brief in introducing Amendment No. 39. It is tabled in order to draw the attention of the Committee to a major gap in the provisions.
We debated the GLA Bill at some length. Although it was not as full as it might have been as regards the duties of the authority to have responsibility for certain public health matters, as a result of work carried out by the King's Fund and other bodies, it was possible for the other place to insert provisions relating to the GLA's assessment of its health policies on the capital. It seems to us on these Benches and to many organisations involved in health in London that the position of the GLA must be recognised to a greater extent.
Indeed, one could draw a parallel much more broadly. The future role of regional government should be recognised. After all, the GLA is a strategic body and such health scrutiny is precisely the kind of activity it should be carrying out. Unless it is brought into the net—and I speak as a Londoner—London will be the poorer and we shall not have the precedent that we should have for future regional government. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Leigh: In speaking to Amendment No. 58, I want to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the missing elements in the Bill. I welcome in principle the fact that Clauses 7 and 8 increase local authorities' accountability for the health of local people. However, at regional level in England, particularly in London, that element is missing in various proposals.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, issues relating to health do not fit neatly into the boundaries of local authorities, either singly or collectively, effectively to organise scrutiny. For example, public health for the region; the work of the regional health authorities; tertiary care provision; and health performance indicators, both inter-regional and intra-regional, could be subject to scrutiny by bodies at the level of the region.
Throughout England, there are in existence organisations which are capable of handling such matters. They are the regional assemblies and chambers which exist in all regions throughout England. They are selections of local authorities and other key social partners.
Unfortunately, the Department of Health does not always recognise the way in which the regional agenda is moving in England. On Friday, I attended a seminar held at the DETR examining the way in which the regional agenda is developing. All the key departments of state were represented, with the exception of the Department of Health. Even the Treasury was represented.
Health has a major role to play at the regional level in driving policy forward. I commend to my noble friend the social inclusion policies, which are most important for the Government, and also regional
1216
economic development. We need to get the health of people right. In my area, levels of unemployment may not be as high as they once were, but the level of incapacity is exceedingly high.
The work of the regional assemblies and chambers is being recognised by other parts of the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor attended a meeting in Middlesborough on Friday 9th March. The Chancellor then said that he was making £5 million of new resources available to regional chambers to help them establish a substantially expanded scrutiny role within regions. He deliberately did not say that that was to be scrutiny only by the RDAs but left it open for them to examine across the region issues which matter to that region.
Regional assemblies are on the agenda. They have the means and the ability to effect scrutiny at the regional level and I hope that my noble friend will consider that most carefully.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I want to speak to Amendment No. 65 standing in my name. I declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly. The amendment is designed to rectify what I can only assume to be a mental aberration by civil servants in failing to recognise the existence of London. Recognition is given to the City of London, which has its own special clause, but the other 7 million people in London might wonder why no arrangements within the Bill would permit the London Assembly to take part in the overview and scrutiny arrangements in respect of London's health services.
We may be told by my noble friend the Minister that that is not a problem because the London Assembly's terms of reference are so broad. However, I am concerned that it is not made clear in the Bill that the London Assembly has a role in respect of the scrutiny of London's health services. Part of that role must be fulfilled in collaboration with the London boroughs and I can see circumstances in which provisions for joint committees of local authorities to scrutinise pan-London health issues will not involve the London Assembly because it is not included on the face of the Bill.
In referring to a particular anomaly, I should declare an interest as a non-executive member of the trust board for the London Ambulance Service. Such trusts are responsible for delivering pan-London services. I understand that twice a year the chief executive of the London Ambulance Service might be required to attend meetings of the overview and scrutiny committees of all 32 London boroughs and of the Corporation of the City of London, perhaps making some 66 visits to such committees. Given that he has an extremely busy role, that is not necessarily the best use of his time.
The most sensible outcome would be for the Bill to reflect clearly the role of the London Assembly; to reflect the fact that the most appropriate scrutiny body for the London Ambulance Service and any other pan-London service will be the London Assembly; and to

1217
ensure that the provisions of the Bill cover that. I am sure that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has the benefit of simplicity but I suspect that it is technically flawed. I suspect that my attempt, which is rather more verbose, is also technically flawed. However, I hope that my noble friend will assure the Committee that at a later stage he will bring forward proposals which will cover London and the role of the London Assembly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to both my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising an interesting question. I recognise the role of the GLA and the regional assemblies and chambers and I am encouraged by their interest in healthcare issues in the wider sense. I am responsible for the eastern and north-western regions of the health service and I encourage both chairs to become involved in the regional chambers. It is very important that regional. chambers understand, for example, the effect of the NHS on the regional economy which can be quite profound. I begin by being positive about constructive relationships at that level.
There are two issues in the context of the Bill. Clearly, we are endeavouring to promote scrutiny at local level, because in the end it is the connection between the health service and local services which has more impact on the quality of the services to the patient and the public. That is why in terms of scrutiny of the NHS we have made local social services the lead authority. I believe that the case for that is as strong in relation to whatever be the regional structure as in relation to the issue raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who referred to district councils. We need clarity.
I am convinced that the principal local authority which accepts the role of scrutiny should be the local social services authority, but I accept that there are circumstances in which scrutiny on a regional basis is appropriate. The powers in Clause 8 of the Bill enable that to happen through a joint committee of the OSC with NHS scrutiny right across the region. I believe that that approach provides a practical basis for working with the GLA without taking any further powers. I am wary of further powers which in the end make unclear who is responsible for scrutiny of the NHS. I believe that to provide powers to the GLA or regional assemblies on the face of the Bill could lead to confusion o f scrutiny responsibilities unless there is clarity as to which authority is absolutely responsible. The Bill already provides for joint committees and will enable a pan-London committee to be established with co-opted GLA members.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris that we want to avoid the need for the chief executive of the London Ambulance Service Trust to make 66 visits. We want a sensible arrangement and we believe that the Bill allows for that. I point out to my noble friend that officials of the department are working with the GLA to develop a protocol about the involvement of the GLA in the development of London-wide health strategies. I should be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss that further.
1218
It is very difficult to accept Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 because it is our policy that CHCs should be abolished. On that basis, those amendments fall.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Can my noble friend clarify how Clause 8 applies to the London Assembly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In a number of ways. Clause 8(2)(a) provides that,
"two or more local authorities may appoint a joint committee of those authorities".
Therefore, it would be possible for the London boroughs to come together to organise a joint committee and for co-options to take place.
Lord Harris of Haringey: First, does my noble friend suggest that Clause 8(2) operates on the basis that the Greater London Authority is a local authority, which on occasions is subject to some doubt? Secondly, can the Committee be clear that Clause 8(2) does not require the operation of subsection (1) as far as concerns the GLA? Clearly, that authority cannot fall within the purview of Clause 8(1) because it does not have executive arrangements under Part II of the Local Government Act.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I said to my noble friend that I was very happy to meet him to discuss this further, particularly in the light of the protocol arrangement that we wish the Department of Health to develop with the GLA. Clause 8(2) makes provision for two or more local authorities—which I take to mean London boroughs—to appoint a joint committee, but it would be open to that joint committee to co-opt members from the GLA.
Lord Smith of Leigh: Is the Minister saying that Clause 8(2)(a) applies also to the regions outside London?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I require a little more persuading of that. The specific case raised by my noble friend Lord Harris related to the area of the London Ambulance Service which, if not coterminous with the GLA boundary, is fairly close to it. If one looked at other regional assemblies one might find it difficult to identify a service which neatly fitted into the regional boundary. I want the NHS and regional chambers and assemblies to have a close working relationship and I am very happy to discuss that further with my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I apologise for labouring the point. Can my noble friend say where in Clause 8 there is a power for a joint committee to co-opt?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am trying to find it myself. There is no question but that the committee can co-opt. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on

1219
that matter. The key point of Clause 8(2) is the ability of local authorities themselves to appoint a joint committee.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his response. As I anticipated, the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Harris, made rather better arguments than I managed to muster because of their knowledge of the regions and the GLA respectively. They made rather telling points, particularly the quotation of Ministers in support of their arguments. The Minister responded more positively than at many other times today by describing this as an interesting debate. We must be making progress if this is interesting, no doubt in contrast to some of the previous debates.
I recognise the Minister's genuine belief in a constructive relationship at regional level, but when he went on to describe what that consisted of they were really crumbs from the legislative table. It is a very unsatisfactory situation if we are to stitch together the joint committees under Clause 8, when clearly the GLA for that purpose does not appear to be a local authority, with the possibility of co-option under a provision of the clause which is extremely well hidden, to say the least. We must then fall back on the formation of a protocol between the GLA and Department of Health, which in a sense gives the DoH the whip hand in all those circumstances. It would be far more satisfactory to recognise the strategic role of regional government, starting with the GLA. I give way to the Minister who appears to be about to tell the Committee the reference to co-option.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is not surprising that I cannot find it in the Bill because it is not there. The power is in Section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 whereby a local authority may co-opt any persons who are not members of the authority. That would relate to the establishment of the joint overview committee which could cover London.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply, which emphasises that we must pray in aid other bits of existing legislation and stitch them together to come up with a solution that is in any way satisfactory. Clearly, the Bill would benefit enormously from an addition which recognised the role of the GLA and future regional assembles. We may well wish to return to this amendment in various forms at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Where a county authority comprises district councils, it shall, where appropriate, include in the membership of the scrutiny committee representatives of each or all of the district councils within the authority's area of responsibility for health services."
The noble Earl said: I was contemplating not moving this amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will allow me to return to the subject raised
1220
by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Amendment No. 38, because I think that there perhaps is a broader dimension to the question than he suggested.
Clause 7 seeks to enhance patient and public influence in the development and operation of the NHS by introducing democratic scrutiny of the NHS through local authority overview and scrutiny committees. As the Committee will know, the clause provides for scrutiny by county councils, county borough councils, unitary authorities and London borough councils. Amendment No. 40 seeks to extend the scrutiny rights to district councils.
To back up the thought behind the amendment, it may be helpful to remind the Committee of a few key points. The NHS primary care reorganisation into primary care groups, evolving into primary care trusts, was devised so that decision making on primary care services could be devolved to communities of approximately 100,000 people. Many of the boundaries of primary care groups, and hence PCTs, are exactly those of their district councils. For rural communities, the county council may seem fairly remote and be located quite some distance away. This amendment seeks to honour the local accountability objective of primary care reorganisation; and it may prove particularly valuable if there is an important local issue such as the closure of a community hospital.
There is a further issue. A primary care group acts as a sub-committee of a health authority. Primary care groups are encouraged to become primary care trusts independent of, but accountable to, their health authorities. The next stage of the evolution, as we shall debate in later amendments, is to become care trusts under the provisions of this Bill. The care trust will probably provide its services within the same boundary of the PCT, if it has evolved from a PCT.
The budget of a care trust for social care is to be delegated from the authority providing social services. It may be worthy of consideration by the Government that that combined role should be democratically accountable to the community that it serves. The Minister said that he thought that this proposal would lead to some unwelcome bureaucracy. I am all for getting rid of unwelcome bureaucracy. However, I should like to suggest that there are all sorts of good reasons relating to democratic representation and the contribution of local knowledge that serve to recommend it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the noble Earl's point. I have already made it clear that I have sympathy with non-metropolitan district councils and that I would certainly encourage the NHS locally to develop as strong a partnership as possible with those councils. Their housing and other roles make that doubly important.
My concern is that unless it is absolutely clear which local authority in any given area is the overview and scrutiny committee, there will be many problems and potential disputes. That is why I consider that the way

1221
in which it is expressed in Clause 8 provides a satisfactory way through. Clause 8(2)(b) makes it clear that,
"a local authority may arrange for relevant functions in relation to that authority to be exercisable by an overview and scrutiny committee of another local authority".
I can assure the noble Earl that in relation to Clause 8 that could be a non-metropolitan district council.
To take the noble Earl's example, if a matter arose concerning a primary care trust, it would be perfectly appropriate and possible for the county council to arrange for that oversight function to be exercisable by the overview and scrutiny committee of a non-metropolitan district council which covered the area of the PCT; but the decision whether or not to do it would be a matter For the county council. I believe that we have the capacity to make it abundantly clear that within any locality one local authority has that overall responsibility.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall reflect on what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) as to the composition of the committee so as to include representatives of the voluntary sector and the Patients' Council,"
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to scrutiny committees, which we have discussed at some length. But we have not discussed the composition of the scrutiny committees as set out in the Bill. This is another provision designed to join up some of the current proposals. It seems to us that it would be very important to have on the scrutiny committees, as of right, representatives of the voluntary sector and patients' councils—not simply co-optable under the provisions outlined by the Minister but as an integral part of the scrutiny process. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 59 and 61, which are designed to ensure that there is fair political representation on local authority overview and scrutiny committees. That would mean that they reflect as closely as possible the aggregate representation of the different political groups of the local authorities and ensure that the Secretary of State cannot, by regulations, change this balance.
We have two concerns. First, while the powers and changes to local government in England and Wales, as created by Part II of the Local Government Act 2000, are in their infancy, this clause of the Bill proposes to extend the role of scrutiny councillors into non-local authority functions. No doubt many scrutiny committees will contain a number of able councillors. However, against the background of continuing doubts about the executive/scrutiny split and the likely experience of scrutiny members, we are concerned that the necessary time, scrutiny and weight given to these functions may be lacking.
1222
Our second concern is to ensure that each scrutiny committee's membership reflects the political make-up of the area for which it is responsible. That is of particular importance, as health authorities' boundaries do not always correspond with those of local authorities. In addition, each local authority is likely to have a different political composition.
Section 21(11) of the Local Government Act 2000 brings into force Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989—the duty to allocate seats to political groups. However, under powers in Sections 20(e) and 24 of the 2000 Act, the Secretary of State has the power to modify any arrangements made by local authorities.
We would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm what arrangements will be put in place to ensure a fair and equitable settlement of political representation between authorities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I deal first with Amendment No. 42, which would require membership of OSCs to include representatives of the voluntary sector and the patients' council. I firmly believe that that should be a matter for the local authority to decide. I am also very clear that the OSC must be in the hands of elected councillors, because that is the whole purpose of having an OSC. It is very important that that should not be dissipated by having too many other people on those committees. It must speak with the authority of the local authority.
As I have made clear in my reference to Section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000, it is already possible for OSCs to co-opt, as non-voting members, members of the voluntary sector, or, indeed, members of the patients' council. However, it is preferable for that matter to be left to each individual local authority to decide.
Perhaps I may turn to the issue of reflecting the balance of OSCs to ensure that there is a proper distribution of seats to political groups among appointing local authority members. Under Clause 8(3)(b) of the Bill, the Secretary of State is already allowed, in making regulations, to apply with modifications Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act. That is relevant to ensuring that we get an appropriate balance. I accept the points that the noble Lord makes. It is important that one gets a political balance. That enhances the credibility of the work of the overview committee. That may be more difficult when joint committees are established. But, as far as possible, our aim is that, when making regulations, the Secretary of State will try to ensure that OSCs are as representative as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his response, particularly to Amendment No. 42. Clearly, that was a disappointing response. It would be understandable if the whole mechanism was so clearly thought through that there was no further room for representation, and so on, but, as this scheme is still very inchoate, it seems disappointing that valuable additions to it, in terms of binding together the scrutiny and representation functions, have not met

1223
with any positive response from the Minister. Nevertheless, we shall ponder on what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) requiring any member of an oversight and scrutiny committee who is also a member of the Health Authority, NHS Trust or Primary Care Trust not to take part in the discharge by the committee of the functions described in subsection (1) above"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 44 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56. This is a straightforward but important issue which I have taken separately. My concern is twofold. There is a danger that OSCs may find themselves acting somewhat incestuously. It is one matter for them to be scrutinising NHS bodies and providers; it is another for them to be scrutinising local authority services provided under joint care arrangements. There is an obvious conflict of interest in the offing there.
It would be better to entrust the overview and scrutiny of joint care arrangements to patients' forums, with the help of patients' councils. Those bodies will be quite independent of the arrangements under scrutiny and well-placed to exercise their functions in a manner that will command public confidence.
The other conflict of interest that might arise relates to scrutiny councillors themselves. It would be a total nonsense if particular members of local authority scrutiny committees were required to scrutinise the responsibilities that they had discharged as board members of trusts or health authorities. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 44 in the name of the noble Earl. The Department of Health is already working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the development of a code of conduct for the membership of the OSCs. The appropriate place for any guidance on matters concerning the possible interests of OSC members involved in scrutiny in the NHS would be in that code of practice. I certainly take on board the substantive point that the noble Earl makes.
So far as concerns the other issue, I do not agree with the noble Earl. I believe that OSCs should look at all services, including those delivered in partnership with the local authority. The noble Earl and other noble Lords perhaps have concerns about the independence of the OSC in that respect, but, if one looks at the role of these scrutiny committees within local government as a whole, that is precisely what they do: they scrutinise services provided by their own local authority. The real distinction is that drawn by my noble friend Lord Smith, who reminded us that the
1224
OSC members have no executive role within the local authority. It is their core function to scrutinise local authority services. Therefore, I do not believe that this is a particular problem. On that basis, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Before making such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community."
The noble Lord said: I was heartened to hear what the Minister said earlier when we were discussing the scrutiny clause. Perhaps he can correct me if I misheard him, but I think that he said, "And of course patients' councils and others will be consulted on the regulations made". That was in relation to Clause 7 and the scrutiny provisions. I hope that is correct. I also hope that that would be the reality with regard to consultation over the regulations relating to patients' councils—for example, that they would be consulted on the regulations which applied to them. If that is the reality, which the Minister appeared to be expressing earlier, then why can we not reflect that on the face of the Bill? In addition, could we not include carers' organisations into the bargain? That would be best practice. In a sense, the Minister was saying, "Yes, we will follow best practice". If that is the case, I would very much hope that we could include that, both in relation to scrutiny and patients' councils and forums. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Actually, I do not believe that that is what I said. I said we would consult on the regulations concerning OSCs with relevant organisations. I mentioned the local government association as a particularly relevant organisation. It is not necessary to specify on the face of the Bill with which organisations the Secretary of State should consult. What is clear, and has been the practice of the Department of Health over the years, is that when considering regulations we consult with the appropriate bodies. We shall very much take account of the views expressed to us. But I do not think that it is necessary to put that on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hear what the Minister says. I agree that one does not want a great long list. But it is always good at this stage of the proceedings to get some kind of assurance. If there were to be a national patients' council—for instance, if that transpired as a result of the Bill—would the Minister believe that that would be an appropriate organisation to consult over both sets of regulations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are a good many "ifs" in that question. If a national patients' council were to be established and if it were established in time

1225
before the regulations for other parts of the Bill had to be prepared, I should have thought that it would be an excellent organisation to consult. However, perhaps the noble Lord's question relates more to the future than to the immediate present.
Lord Clement-Jones: If that is the case, I can only hope that the regulations take some time in the making. However, we shall hang onto the lifelines thrown by the Minister at this stage of the proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Joint overview and scrutiny committees etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 42, after "Act" insert ", or section 9 of, and Schedule 1 to, this Act"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. Amendment No. 60 is a minor amendment that applies exempt information arrangements to joint overview and scrutiny committees as well as to OSCs established by Clause 7. Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are technical amendments which ensure that arrangements in Wales for overview and scrutiny committees are consistent with arrangements in England. Essentially, they both have the effect that the National Assembly for Wales may make regulations enabling the Assembly to direct local authorities in Wales to enter joint scrutiny arrangements. That gives the Assembly the same powers as the Secretary of State in England. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Page 7, line 43, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant authority"
Page 7, line 47, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "relevant authority"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Overview and scrutiny committees: exempt information]:
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 8, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: The overview and scrutiny committees are of vital importance if there is to be transparency and accountability in the NHS. We have serious concerns about whether the committees will be able to achieve all that we would wish. Subsection (4) of Clause 9 rather illustrates our concern. Our amendment seeks to delete subsection (4) because it runs counter to the declared function of the
1226
committees. If retained, subsection (4) would allow the committees to restrict in whatever way they wished the information that they disclosed to the public, with no debate over that locally or nationally. If the committees are indeed to have a function of overseeing the NHS, it is clear that the public must know and be a party to decisions that are made about their services. What role can an overview and scrutiny committee fulfil if it operates in an unaccountable and secretive way?
The amendment therefore proposes the deletion of subsection (4), which seems to us to confer too much power without accountability. The operation of such a subsection would reduce transparency from the current standard. That would be unacceptable. Given the views and recommendations of the 12th report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on Clause 67 of the Bill, we ask the Government to reconsider subsection (4) of the clause, which we conclude gives an inappropriate power to the committees. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, covered the ground very well in what she said. I should just like to add one or two points. Subsection (4) raises immediate questions because it contains a Henry VIII power. I should like to ask the Minister about that. As I read it, the subsection confers a great deal of power with precious little accountability. It effectively allows the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly carte blanche to restrict the information that may be disclosed to the public without, as the noble Baroness said, any prior debate or consultation. I question whether that is needed. The current standard of transparency in matters of this kind is one which, as far as I know, operates perfectly well. As a general rule, we should strive for a situation that provides the public with as much transparency as possible. It is right that the public should know about and be party to decisions made about their services. I hope that the Minister can clarify the background to this part of the clause.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly agree that we wish to have OSCs operating as openly as possible. Clause 9(4) enables the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to amend Schedule 1 by adding to it, varying it or deleting its provisions. But I hope that I can reassure the Committee as to the extent to which that is likely to take place.
Clearly, we are in a shifting environment. The NHS as an organisation needs to change from time to time. The provision in the clause to amend Schedule 1 by order allows the flexibility necessary to ensure that the public disclosure of information in the course of the scrutiny of the NHS is kept in line with the changing nature of the NHS and local government legislation. There is a specific situation that we already know may require this provision. For instance, during the passage of the Local Government Act 2000 Ministers undertook to conduct a review of the categories in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 on which Schedule 1 to this Bill is based. Schedule 1 has

1227
some additional categories to reflect its health service focus. The review is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The intention of the review is to examine whether the list of exempt categories may be restricted. If the DETR changes the list, the department will also be able to take action to revise Schedule 1 accordingly.
It is worth explaining why we need exempt information. Where an OSC meeting is perhaps discussing NHS matters, it is possible that discussions will involve the disclosure of information relating to the NHS which should not be disclosed to the public at large. The obvious examples of that are personnel information or medical information about individual NHS patients. That is why Clause 9 and Schedule 1 make the additional provision for overview and scrutiny committees that are scrutinising the NHS which corresponds to the existing provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.
The reason for adopting a similar approach to that contained in the 1972 Act is so that, as circumstances change—for example, where changes are made to the NHS structure or legislation relating to the NHS is amended—Schedule 1 can be brought up to date or be otherwise adapted. I believe that the undertaking given by Ministers during the passage of the Local Government Act 2000 to see how this power could be further restricted provides the comfort required by the noble Baroness. Furthermore, we shall take account of any decisions that are made by the DETR at the end of its consultation.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reply. I draw some comfort from it, but I am not fully convinced by what he has said. Nevertheless, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before half past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Imports from Developing Countries
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view about the European Union initiative "Everything but Arms ".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising once again the important issue of the EU Initiative, "Everything but Arms". I speak in my capacity as president of the West India Committee
1228
and, as the House knows, I have long taken an interest in the Caribbean. I am delighted that so many speakers are taking part in the debate today.
The initiative will have a profound effect for the worse on the economic, social and political stability of those Caribbean countries, especially Guyana, Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean, which are dependent on commodities such as bananas, sugar and rice. But let there be no misunderstanding: the initiative will also affect us here in the United Kingdom.
Little has been heard about the initiative because of the speed with which it has been rushed through. It started in September of last year, barely six months ago, and was agreed by the European Council on 26th February last. It will come into effect at the end of March; that is, in around two weeks' time. The initiative is driven by the EU Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, and is a response by the EU to its desire to meet its WTO commitments to the world's poorest countries in such a way that the Americans and Japan will make similar offers. However, the more one looks at the initiative, the more one can see that it is not a good example of an ethical foreign policy.
What does the initiative say? It grants duty-free and quota-free access for all least developed country products, except arms, from the end of March. While this may help the world's poorest nations, it has the effect of setting aside existing regimes like those in the Caribbean and the more developed producers among the ACP of sugar, bananas and rice. It will have a serious impact on employment in all the more developed ACP nations producing those commodities. For example, 70 per cent of the population of Guyana is employed in sugar and rice. The initiative will erode rapidly the present arrangements in many Caribbean nations, just as they are starting the gradual process of economic transition out of preference and into free trade.
We all welcome the principle that help should be given to the world's poorest countries. Clearly, trade is much better than aid. But the way that this initiative is to work changes unilaterally existing preferential arrangements. It does so by extending duty and quota-free access immediately for all products entering the EU from the world's LDCs. Only in the case of sugar, rice and bananas will full implementation be delayed, until 2006 for bananas and 2009 for sugar and rice. The purpose of this, however, is not to benefit the Caribbean, but to help the producers of bananas, sugar and rice in the EU countries themselves. But of course prices will fall and the special quotas for all these three sensitive commodities will be opened immediately at levels which suggest that, from the end of this year, the Caribbean and other ACP producers will lose a significant share of their European market.
Not surprisingly, the Caribbean and the ACP have protested that, under the terms of the Cotonou Convention, signed only last June, they must be consulted. However, this has not happened. The convention seems to have been overruled. Indeed, in the debate that took place, EU states demanded

1229
concessions in order that their own agricultural producers would not be disadvantaged. The result is that the more developed ACP nations, for example, those of the Caribbean and Mauritius, now have to try and salvage what they can by arguing that, after the implementation of the initiative in two weeks' time, impact studies must be undertaken to measure the effect of the initiative on these producers. These must be undertaken by the EU and debated. This is, after all, the wrong way of dealing with this whole matter, which has been extremely disturbing, in particular to Caribbean countries.
The Prime Minister of Mauritius has told the Prime Minister and other European leaders that the initiative will initially transfer highly needed benefits from small, vulnerable island states to the least developed countries. Then, at a later stage, markets will be disrupted with serious consequences for more ACP nations and the French departments d'Outre Mer. ACP sugar producers have amplified this and have argued their own case. They suggest that the way in which the EU decision is structured means that the negative impact will be borne wholly by more ACP sugar producers and that,
"it will be the poor, not the rich, who bear the brunt of an initiative to help the poorest".
I regard that as an extraordinary outcome for an initiative.
So far as concerns rice and bananas, the situation is little different. In both cases, the market will be progressively disrupted as the new market arrangements, again largely designed to protect European producers, result in less competitive ACP producers being displaced from the EU market.
Britain has long had close ties with the Anglophone Caribbean countries and the 500,000 people from the Caribbean who now live in this country should make us recognise that fact today. The Caribbean was once known as the "Jewel in the Crown" and I believe that we cannot, and should not, neglect the interests of these small, vulnerable but important states. No one is arguing for preferential access in perpetuity. Indeed, I support the principles of free trade. But small island nations that are heavily dependent on commodities require a reasonable period of time in which to adjust. They cannot simply go out of preference and into free trade in a matter of two weeks, such is the timetable of this initiative.
I believe that the United Kingdom will ignore their interests at its own peril. Nations such as those in the eastern Caribbean, Jamaica and Guyana, are already major sources of drugs, centres for transhipment, money laundering and organised crime, including arms trafficking. The sudden collapse of sugar, rice and bananas in already weakened economies will have a direct impact on the United Kingdom, as the temptation will be for those countries to turn to drugs. What a policy, to take away from countries those commodities which help poor people to survive and stand on their own feet, and to put in front of them something much less desirable.
When the Minister comes to reply, I hope that he will say, first, that the treaty obligations under the Cotonou Convention must be met: there must be an impact statement. Secondly, any EU decision to undercut or to shorten the agreed eight-year preparatory period—that is, from 2001–2008—before the sugar, rice and banana industries can undertake a measured transition to World Trade Organisation compatible arrangements, would be quite unacceptable.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will accept that financial compensation is not an alternative. These three industries are the employers of most of the labour in much of the Caribbean. A gradual, integrated process of transition away from older industries to newer industries—such as tourism, financial services and information technology—is required. If this does not happen, the resultant instability will damage the future prospects for tourism and the newer industries.
All this transition will require a great deal of help from the private sector; it will require investment and it will require training. None of these things can happen overnight. I return to my original point: we have an obligation to these small, vulnerable countries, which are part of the Commonwealth.
I accept that the new WTO round is desirable, but it is not desirable at any cost. Special and differential treatment is desirable for small and vulnerable states such as those in the Caribbean. We were prepared to recognise this in the past; we recognised it when we entered the EU and we have recognised it on other occasions. Why have we forgotten it now? Should we not reconsider this policy, even at the eleventh hour.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating the debate today. I am happy to support her plea for more sympathetic treatment for the banana, rice and sugar producers of the Caribbean. She has a distinguished record as a champion of the interests of the West Indies, and I am sure that the governments of that region will be grateful to her for securing the debate.
Why is there such concern in the commodity producing ACP states over the "Everything but Arms" initiative when, on the surface, it appears to offer such a great step forward for the world's 48 least developed countries? The problem is that one man's meat may be another man's poison. While the EBA initiative will help the LDCs, and is indeed a huge advance for them—I do not dispute that—it will in its present form do untold damage to every Caribbean economy that is dependent on commodities.
David Jessop, the executive director of the Caribbean Council for Europe, wrote on 13th October:
"It is no exaggeration to say that it could result in the destruction of much of the Caribbean's sugar and rice industry, do serious damage to the rum industry's last remaining chance to compete in the EU market, and diminish further the prospects for Caribbean bananas in Europe".

1231
In November, the Guyanan Foreign Minister—I was interested that the noble Baroness referred to Guyana on two occasions in her speech—said that the proposals were a knock-out blow which his country could not sustain. If the proposals went through, he said, it would become virtually impossible for Guyana to export rice, sugar and rum. As those commodities account for 44 per cent of Guyana's total exports, this would force Guyana into becoming one of the world's poorest countries. This must not be allowed to happen.
The Ministers of the ACP states held a council meeting last December. They produced a very interesting report afterwards. They started by warmly welcoming the EBA initiative—an act of generosity on their part, I feel. They went on to say that they had considered the implications for the stability of the banana market. The report said:
"Ministers noted that the EU market is attractive because of the effective limitations on supply from all sources. Measures which remove this limitation will inevitably lead to oversupply and the consequent further decline in prices".
My noble friend Lady Amos last week kindly sent me a briefing paper from the Department for International Development which explains why DfID supports the EBA initiative. It points out that following the passing on 26th February of a compromise regulation proposed by the Swedish presidency, there are now extended transition periods of five years for bananas and eight years for sugar and rice. The note goes on to say that the legitimate concerns of the Caribbean and other non-LDC ACP producers must be addressed, and talks about how the increased transition periods,
"allow a reasonable time for Caribbean producers to adjust gradually to the increase in competition".
That is fine provided that it is matched by action, and there are some clear indications of how that help with transition will be given. My worry, which I know is shared by many noble Lords, is that the rural economies of the Commonwealth Caribbean face absolute ruin, and that farmers who are exhorted to diversify will see that advice as simply giving them the green light to grow illegal crops for the drugs trade. We must do much more to support the process of diversification and steer it into legitimate directions.
Governments of both parties have stood solidly by our friends in the Caribbean. The contribution that their people have made to our economy and society in peacetime, and their bravery and sacrifice in times of war, means that we must continue to do all that is within our power to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as global trade is liberalised. It would be a terrible irony if the EBA initiative removed millions from poverty in the 48 least developed countries and, at the same time—perhaps unwittingly—caused terrible hardship in the ACP states.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in a debate on the EU sugar regime moved by my right honourable friend Mrs Gillian Shephard on 21st November last year,
1232
concerns were expressed by many MPs about the impact that the "Everything but Arms" proposals would have upon both the countries concerned in the Caribbean and our UK sugar producers. Tonight my noble friend Lady Young has given us the opportunity to look at these matters again.
While I understand very well the issues about which she has spoken, I hope that she will forgive me if much of my contribution centres upon our UK producers. I understand the difficulties and the economic and social needs of the Caribbean countries—I share my noble friend's concerns—but it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the impact that that will have on our producers here.
In her reply to the debate in the other place, the Minister, Joyce Quin, said:
"it is our responsibility to ensure a non-discriminatory effect as far as the UK is concerned".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/00; col. 23WH.]
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that UK farmers are facing their lowest incomes for some 50 years, an average of just over £5,000 per annum; they are struggling against lower prices caused by the weak euro; and, in addition, since 1996, although sugar prices to the producer have gone down—they, the producers, are being paid less—the price of the product has risen.
In addition, it is not only the prime sugar producers who will be affected. A depressed sugar industry has implications for other local industries in the area—such as companies which supply the equipment used on the farms or in factories—and for those who work in sugar beet factories, whose jobs are threatened. In East Anglia, where sugar beet is grown in large amounts, farmers have had to cope with the down-turn in farming trade shared by every farmer throughout the country. They have also had the additional difficulty of swine fever and now—although it has not yet, fortunately, affected the two counties—we are in the depths of a foot and mouth epidemic which is running out of control.
The EBA proposals could result in a 25 to 40 per cent sugar quota cut, affecting both the EU and ACP producers. In the UK, some 23,000 jobs are at risk. I believe that the UK should not accept any quota cut as we have a deficit in our production. We produce about 50 per cent of our country's sugar needs. If any quota cuts are agreed, they should fall first on countries within the EU which have sugar surpluses.
As my noble friend suggested, the two proposals we are discussing today are contradictory and completely incompatible. Instead of tinkering with the sugar regime, this matter should be delayed and considered with the fundamental reform of the CAP. In the meantime, a full impact assessment should be undertaken to evaluate the effect of the EBA proposals on UK sugar producers. Perhaps I may ask the Minister why such an in-depth impact study has not been undertaken. Will the Minister not acknowledge that, if the EU is expected to reduce domestic sugar beet quotas, the UK would be unfairly disadvantaged?

1233
I again thank my noble friend for raising this very important issue. Although I have concentrated on the effects that these proposals will have on the UK, I am deeply concerned about the Caribbean countries. While I, like others, accept that there will have to be changes in the future, I think we are unnecessarily rushing through this matter. We should stop and rethink even at this late hour.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having provided an opportunity to debate this important subject. I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and a trustee of the Overseas Development Institute.
The 48 least developed countries to which the European Commission's proposal would apply include 32 of the 35 countries in the lowest category of the United Nations development programme's Human Development Index. Just imagine what that means in terms of human misery, suffering and wasted human potential. Aid alone can never provide the answer. There has to be a genuine opportunity to gain access to the markets of the world. Anything that inhibits this is indefensible.
Increasingly, free trade and the benefits of trade liberalisation have been preached to the developing countries as the route to their salvation. What, frankly, is deplorable is when too often from exactly the same quarters as those from which the sermons on market principles are preached comes the pressure for protectionism when self-interest is perceived as threatened. Northern protectionism currently costs developing countries an estimated 700 billion US dollars a year. Against that background, what the Commission proposes is very modest.
Research by the Institute of Development Studies has, I gather, indicated that the immediate impact of the new scheme will be limited to frozen beef, cheddar, sweetcorn, bananas, maize, long grain rice—husked and wholly milled—raw cane sugar, white sugar and molasses. There is not much prospect of the volume of exports of most of these products increasing significantly over the next few years. The 48 countries in question account for only 0.003 per cent of European Union imports and 0.4 per cent of world trade. They do not have the capacity rapidly to increase the volume of their exports.
However, in the case of beef, maize, rice and sugar there could be an increase in exports to the European Union as a result of diversion from other markets with less favourable terms of trade. But it seems likely from the research carried out by the IDS that the only significant such diversion would be sugar from Malawi, Mozambique and Sudan. Of these, the country most likely to gain is Mozambique. Even this increase would be small in absolute terms, although very important for Mozambique, whose global sugar exports in 1997 were only 59,000 tonnes. We should do well to remember that 40 per cent of Mozambicans live below the poverty line on less than one dollar a day.
1234
One in five children in Mozambique is dead by the age of five; it is one of the most educationally deprived countries in the world; and the country is still reeling from devastating floods both last year and earlier this year. Improved access to the European Union could help a great deal; and, of course, Mozambique happens to be a member of the Commonwealth.
Of course, there are real anxieties about the implications of all this. Sugar and bananas are the principal concern. They are of great value to vulnerable communities in the Caribbean. Convincing transitional arrangements will, therefore, be essential, as will real help in improving competitiveness and diversification. This cannot be left to chance. But what will no longer be acceptable is that historic accidents should debar equally poor or even poorer countries from their right to access.
The Everything but Arms initiative could prove a valuable, if modest, contribution by the European Union to generating confidence that the multilateral trade system can be made to look to the needs of the poor as well as of the rich. There will then be the ability—which is desperately needed—to say to the United States and to the World Trade Organisation not merely "Do as we say" but "Do as we do". However, in taking this road, it is essential to remember that every bit as important as the level playing fields themselves are the tailor-made arrangements to bring countries to the point at which they can play on them, for no two countries in the developing world and their needs are ever exactly the same.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this initiative is but one part of an international movement to reduce third world poverty. The movement is led by Great Britain, and especially by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We have recognised that the least developed countries are stuck in a vicious cycle of debt, poverty and under-development because they are excluded from world trade and are unable to develop their economies. We have realised that by our actions we can turn this vicious cycle into a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and sustainable development. No single change will make a greater contribution to fulfilling that virtuous circle than opening the markets of prosperous countries to the goods produced by poor countries.
However, I am not entirely carried away with euphoria. I listened with great interest to the careful words of caution of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I agree that there need to be safeguards against corruption and exploitation. The legitimate concerns of the Caribbean producers must be addressed. But equally, there must be no clumping of subsidised food crops or other products in the 48 poorest countries. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on this point.
The point that I want to explore is how long these kinds of arrangements are sustainable. Let me explain. Take the sugar industry, for example. The price of

1235
sugar in Europe is three times the world price. An elaborate system of quotas, subsidies and price guarantees has provided Europe's sugar industry with a profitable, protected, captive market. I simply ask: for how long will consumers allow this to go on?
This business is operated by companies. Today, companies are as heavily judged by image and reputation, by brand quality and by business ethics as they are by economic or financial factors. All these factors are very vulnerable to the bad publicity of profits from artificially maintained high prices and protected markets. Some say that corporate citizenship is just a matter of clever public relations. That may be the case. But it also makes for good business. It enhances the brand, it encourages staff loyalty by making employees feel good about the company and it pleases customers because today consumers have ethical commitments too.
Once consumers begin to target well-known brands with ethical demands, the brands react very quickly. That is why Nike shoes and Levi jeans are now made only in factories where there are adequate standards in wages and working conditions. It is why suppliers to McDonald's have to maintain high environmental standards; and it is why the major pharmaceutical companies are offering discounted drugs to help combat HIV in some of the world's poorest countries. In addition, thanks to such developments as cheap solar power and micro-credit, these poor countries are starting to become profitable markets for major companies.
Surely what the increasing liberalisation of world trade means in practice is that, instead of relying on quotas and subsidies, we all have to lift our performance. That is why consumers can make a difference. I congratulate the European Union on having taken this step.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lady Young for initiating this short debate. It is very important that the interests of the Caribbean islands are supported by the United Kingdom. That is not only in their interest; it is also in ours.
Poor countries such as the small Caribbean islands have to grow what is possible. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that ethical consumers might buy Caribbean bananas. If the market is adverse, regrettably such countries turn to narcotics production and transhipment, money laundering and trafficking in arms. The relationship of these activities to organised crime and terrorism was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Young.
When the European Council agreed to the Everything but Arms initiative, it recognised the plight of the poorest countries, which, of course, was right. But at the same time it ignored the effect that it would have on the future economic, social and political stability of any Caribbean nations dependent on commodities. The Caribbean and the ACP countries
1236
have protested that, under the terms of the Cotonou Convention signed in June 2000, they must be consulted. However, the EU chose not to see this as an issue. As a result, more developed ACP nations—for example, the Caribbean and Mauritius—now have to try to salvage what they can through arguing after the event that impact studies on the effect on ACP commodity producers must be undertaken by the EC and discussed.
Surely the Minister will agree that treaty obligations under the Cotonou Convention must be met. ACP sugar producers have suggested that the way in which the EU decision is structured means that, in effect, it will be the poor, not the rich, who bear the brunt of an initiative to help the poorest.
It is now some time since I had the privilege of visiting some of these beautiful islands. I am probably out of date, but I cannot believe that their difficulties have lessened with the passage of time—rather they have worsened. I add my plea to that expressed by my noble friend Lady Young, that the British Government should seek partners with a vested interest in the outcome; in other words, that they should establish a position of leadership in the EU and with the United States in relation to the Caribbean and build a new vehicle with the private sector that is able to foster the delivery of rapid results.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, when looking into the World Trade Organisation and the EU mandate post Seattle in June of last year, the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the European Union made two comments in its report that I should like to quote. First, at paragraph 159, it said that,
"the EU must change its agricultural policies both to prevent the dumping of its surplus production on to world markets in a way which is damaging to developing countries, and to allow access to its markets for the agricultural exports on which developing countries depend".
Then, at paragraph 290, the report quite specifically said:
"While the EU procrastinates on the Common Agricultural Policy, and thus continues to impose restrictions on agricultural imports, it weakens its bargaining power in persuading others to go further in the concessions they offer to developing countries. We think that the EU should seriously consider giving a lead by allowing duty-free access for all imports"—
the committee emphasised the word "all"—
"from least developed countries, without waiting for other developed countries to follow suit".
When the report was debated in your Lordships' House, no one took issue with either of those points.
Originally, Everything but Arms was a proposal to allow duty-free, quota free access to the European Union for all goods from the world's least developed countries, except arms and munitions. We are now debating a proposal that has been changed—essentially changing the current generalised system of preferences in order to extend duty-free access without the quantitative restrictions to all commodities from the least developed countries, but with a recognition of the specific problems of three sensitive products:

1237
bananas, rice and sugar. There are very clear proposals now before Her Majesty's Government, which are not yet agreed but which the Government appear to be supporting. They are being brokered by the Swedish presidency in order to get a timetabled arrangement for dealing with those three sensitive products.
At present, this House should be encouraging the Government to encourage the Swedish presidency in the arrangements that it is seeking to make for those sensitive products, while at the same time bearing in mind the very clear cautionary words that are expressed Al the Government's Explanatory Memorandum on the policy issue. Paragraph 15 of that memorandum, which talks about policy implications, says—and I welcome this—that the,
"UK Government strongly supports the original Commission proposal. The 48 LDCs have become increasingly marginalised in the world economy, their peoples are amongst the world's poorest, and they are desperately in need of assistance to stimulate their own development and growth. The LDCs are characterised by their exclusion from international trade, accounting collectively for less than 0.5% of world trade".
That is the Government's own statement of policy implications. I believe that they are right. I hope that this compromise succeeds, because I believe that it will achieve improved access to EU markets by the LDCs, while giving sufficient time for the countries that are affected to adjust to change—an adjustment that I hope will be fully supported by the ACP, the European Union and the DfID. If they support and encourage the process of transition and change, I believe that we shall have a truly free international economy.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having raised the subject this evening. It is obviously important that proper attention should be paid to this important advance of the European Union to improve access to its markets by the least developed countries. I am especially glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has just referred to the report last year of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union which welcomed such proposals.
Among those of us on these Benches there is a strong belief in the advantages of free trade. Therefore, we welcome the Everything but Arms agreement, not only in its own right but also as a confidence-building measure that increases the chance of starting a further major trade round of the World Trade Organisation at Qatar this November, and restarting a process which went so seriously wrong in Seattle last year. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, rightly said, this presents problems for the other ACP countries. I shall return later to that issue.
Some people would criticise the relatively limited concessions and the very long transitional periods as far as concerns bananas, sugar and rice, which, as the noble Baroness said, are primarily designed to protect the interests of the European producers rather—I fear—than those of the ACP countries. This proposal shows a need for an aggregate strategy towards the
1238
least developed countries and the ACP countries. I hope that the Everything but Arms agreement will shame the other wealthy countries into making similar concessions. We need to pursue debt relief, as has been advocated by the current Government. However, we also need to structure bilateral aid to the ACP countries to ensure that they will be able to diversify. as has been recommended.
In conclusion, I should like to make one further point. There seems to me to be a need for the Government to spend more effort in making the case for free trade so as to give the developing countries market access. The curious coalition that we saw last year at Seattle must be countered by the powerful arguments that exist and which, I believe, are shared in many parts of your Lordships' House. In that respect, these Benches would certainly not wish to claim any monopoly on the term "liberal". We hope that everyone will be liberal, as far as concerns the liberalisation of international trade.
Those arguments were made most effectively last year in the DfID White Paper, which pointed out the value that can be achieved in this way. We have seen the need for this in much of the discussion in the negotiations taking place in Geneva this week on the general agreement in trade and services. Once again, we have heard alarmist arguments that freer trade in services would merely be advantageous to large enterprises from developed countries to the cost of the less developed countries.
In spite of the problems which have rightly been pointed out by the noble Baroness, the Everything but Arms initiative which we are considering is, I believe, a credit to the European Union. I hope that it will take us forward to the further liberalisation of world trade which, if it is introduced properly and with the other measures, including the structural aid for diversification for the Caribbean countries, could only be to the great advantage of the least developed countries.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for introducing this debate so well. The Conservative Party believes in free trade and compliance with the rules of the WTO and in assisting the most disadvantaged third world countries.
However, I must point out to your Lordships that there is no such thing as free free trade. The least developed countries (LDCs) have no industrial base and the only way to boost their external trade is through agriculture. But what we are looking at is a see-saw. As there is a finite demand for such products as sugar, rice and bananas, if one group of countries is given preferential treatment, inevitably another area will suffer. Then that already struggling group will be dragged down the economic ladder—a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The aims of the Everything but Arms initiative are to provide help to the LDCs, but the way that it has been written and the way that it is intended to be

1239
initiated have not been thought through. The timing of the initiative turns on its head the Cotonou agreement which gave limited preferential trading arrangements to ACP states but would be totally negated by the EBA initiative. The agreement was signed as recently as June 2000 and the EU Commission announced the Everything but Arms initiative before the ink had time to dry on 22nd September. Under the Cotonou agreement there should have been consultation and an assessment of the effect on the Caribbean economies. There was none.
Also, before the initiative can be brought into effect, there should be an examination of the problem of countries of origin; otherwise, we are in danger of creating the potential for fraud and deceit. Nepalese rice is a good example. Rice can enter Nepal from another country and be subjected to minimal processing as there will not be an army of inspectors to check what is going on. Then that same rice will qualify for lower tariffs to the detriment of other rice producers, some of them only marginally less poor.
The initiative will have a serious negative effect on every ACP country exporting the three important products I have just mentioned and will erode the arrangements in many Caribbean nations just as they are beginning the process of transition out of economic preferences that they have hitherto enjoyed. The measure has the effect of unilaterally modifying existing preferential arrangements by extending duty and quota free access to the EU from the LDCs, although in the case of bananas, sugar and rice the implementation will be delayed. Even then the special quotas given to LDCs for those three sensitive commodities will undoubtedly result in ACP producers, and especially those in the Caribbean, immediately losing significant shares of the European market.
The UK should have a special concern about the Caribbean. Some 56 per cent of the workforce in the five Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean work in preference-dependent industries. These countries will remain stable only as long as the region is stable. We have substantial export and investment interests in the area. If we impoverish this area, which is already targeted by criminal elements because of its proximity to the US, there will inevitably be an upsurge in the production and transhipment of drugs, trafficking in arms and money laundering. The UK, the EU and, indeed, the US have a vested interest in not upsetting the delicate balance of trade by sudden changes in the regime. Private sector involvement and capital are essential to the future growth of the area. Such investment will not be available if the area is deemed to be unstable, thus pushing it into a rapidly descending spiral of new deprivation.
What is needed is a far more gradual and tapered process rather than the uncontrolled upheaval that is projected. The initiative will, to begin with, transfer much needed benefits from highly vulnerable island states to the least developed countries. Markets will be distorted and disrupted with dire consequences for other countries as well as the possible destabilization
1240
of the areas that are prejudiced. The Government should use their influence in the corridors of Brussels to adopt a more gradualist approach. If they do not, the poor, not the rich, will bear the brunt of a good initiative designed to help the very poorest.
8.15 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given by the Unstarred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view about the European Union initiative Everything but Arms—to explain the Government's position on this important recent agreement in the European Union.
There seem to me to be three issues here which have to be carefully balanced: free trade, the reform of the common agricultural policy and our moral duty to the poorest people in the world. I hope that Members of this House can accept all three of those issues and that they also agree that the most difficult aspect is balancing those three conflicting issues. Our moral duty to the poorest people in the world was well expressed by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union's important report of last June, The World Trade Organisation: The EU Mandate After Seattle. That stated,
"We think that the EU should seriously consider giving a lead by allowing duty free access for all imports from least developed countries, without waiting for other developed countries to follow suit".
Let me start with some facts. Some 98 per cent of tariff lines covering the EU's imports from the 48 least developed countries in the world have been free of tariffs and quotas for some time. I note in passing that these products have never proved disruptive to EU markets.
Last October the Commission produced a proposal for the abolition of tariffs with effect from 1st January 2001 on all the remaining 900 or so tariff lines still subject to import duties, except for arms. The sole exceptions to this proposed early removal of tariffs were around 12 tariff lines covering raw sugar, rice and bananas where a three-year transitional period to phase out tariffs was suggested as a recognition of the relative sensitivity of these agricultural products.
As the Government explained in their Explanatory Memorandum submitted to your Lordships' Scrutiny Committee on European Legislation on 13th November, we believe that the proposal would benefit the poorest countries in the world. It would open to their relatively early stage industries and primary producers the largest market of consumers in the world.
Among these 48 poorest countries of the world, whose citizens—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly pointed out—subsist on less than one dollar a day, are Commonwealth countries such as Tanzania, Mozambique and Zambia. Their current state of economic development and poor infrastructure means that they are only likely relatively slowly to be able to take advantage of this new market access. But the EBA

1241
initiative gives them the certainty that our markets are open to them which should help them to attract the investment and development they so desperately need. Of course, it is not possible to be certain about either the speed or volume of their supply response to the opportunity of the EBA initiative. The Commission's impact study, finally published in February—but largely irrelevant as it was based on the superseded initial proposal—suggested EU imports of sugar from LDCs of between 900,000 and 2.7 million tonnes in the short to medium term. Oxfam's study estimated only 100,000 tonnes of sugar in the short term. Another study suggested 1.9 million tonnes in the medium term and the International Sugar Organisation suggested 900,000 tonnes after 10 years. The variables in all this are huge, not least the current attractiveness of an EU internal sugar price at over 2½ times world market price—a differential which the imminent reform of the sugar regime will probably reduce.
Indeed, the rightness of the EU's wish to help the poorest has been recognised by developing countries themselves. Before Christmas at the regular meeting of parliamentarians from the EU and its African, Caribbean and Pacific counterparts under the auspices of the Cotonou Agreement the EBA initiative was welcomed. The Prime Minister of Barbados in writing to the Prime Minister endorsed the objective of helping the least developed countries in order to draw them into the wider globalised marketplace. While noting with concern the possible negative impact of the Commission's original proposal, the Prime Minister of Barbados said,
"We therefore have no hesitation in expressing our fullest support for the implementation of such an objective".
We therefore supported a presidency proposal made on 19th February, finally agreed at the 26th February General Affairs Council, which committed the EU to removing all remaining tariffs (except on arms imports) from the LDCs. Already tariffs have been removed on nearly 900 tariff lines. They remain now only on the three sensitive products of bananas, rice and sugar. I do not think, therefore, that it is true to say, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that the interests of ACP countries were not taken into account. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the transitional arrangements have now been put in place.
For bananas, tariffs will be reduced by 20 per cent a year from 1st January 2002, becoming completely tariff free on 1st January 2006. This aligns these arrangements with the recent agreement on the EU banana regime, which will move from a quota system to a tariff only system from 1st January 2006. For rice and sugar, tariffs will be reduced at the beginning of their relevant marketing years (1st September for rice and 1st July for sugar) by 20 per cent in 2006, 50 per cent in 2007 and 80 per cent in 2008. They become completely tariff free during 2009. But meanwhile in order to phase-in access, tariff quotas are to be introduced based on the best figures for LDC imports during the 1990s, plus 15 per cent. That is a considerable period of time.
1242
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she did not argue for protection in perpetuity. But in the light of these arrangements we have protection which runs for some considerable time into the future. This is designed to smooth the adjustment, particularly for other EU suppliers. This also aligns the graduated entry for LDC sugar and rice to the EU market with the period envisaged under last year's Cotonou Agreement with the ACPs for the setting up of new regional economic partnership agreements which arc due to come into effect by 1st January 2008.
The Government approach to this complex subject was laid out in last December's important White Paper from the Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. This committed the Government to working to improve the access of developing countries to EU markets including duty and quota free access to EU markets for all least developed countries.
The UK has therefore been supportive of the Commission's proposal throughout. We believe, as does Oxfam, that the adjustment costs from this change, which will accrue in part to long-established non-LDC ACP suppliers, should be dealt with sympathetically through EU and bilateral aid. Indeed, many Caribbean countries, even though they retain a guaranteed market for 80 per cent of their sugar exports to the EU under the terms of the Sugar Protocol, have already begun to diversify their economies away from too great a dependence on a single crop and a single market. Some 80 per cent of their sugar sendings are guaranteed under the Sugar Protocol, which is not affected by the EBA arrangements.
For bananas there is little risk of competition from the LDC before 2006. These costs should not, and did not, deter us from seeking to aid the very poorest. For EU suppliers of sugar and rice, we believe that the impact of tariff-free access for LDC suppliers will be relatively small, not least since the Government and EU are committed, well before full access for the LDC suppliers in 2009, to reforms of the EU regimes for both these products. It is right that consideration of the impact of the Everything but Arms initiative should be taken into account in discussions on reforming those regimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the question of consultation on Cotonou. The Commission proposal was first sent to the ACP secretariat at the same time that it was transmitted to member states, in October 2000. The EU ACP Trade Sub-Committee met in November 2000 to discuss the issues. Both sides welcomed the proposals. The joint EU-ACP parliamentary assembly met in October 2000 and welcomed the proposals. Do not let us forget that Article 37(9) of the Cotonou Agreement explicitly commits the EU to providing duty and quota free access to the LDCs for essentially all the products by 2005 at the latest.
The noble Baroness also raised the spectre of the ACP countries turning to drug production. I do not think that there is evidence to support that claim. Even with guaranteed access to EU markets at some high

1243
prices, some countries already have drug problems. Other poorer countries which do not have preferences do not have drug problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the question of the impact on British sugar beet farmers and producers. I believe that the current sugar regime is unsustainable. It will be increasingly difficult to defend in the WTO. Enlargement will make it impossible to maintain in its current form. The EBA agreement will have no impact on British beet farmers while transitional quotas are in place. By the time they are removed, other factors such as enlargement and reform of the CAP sugar regime will have necessitated change anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of fraud. Safeguard action can be taken if substantial quantities of LDC products over and above reasonable expectation from previous statistics start coming into the EU; and safeguard measures allow all trade preferences to be suspended. That is a significant deterrent against fraud.
The Government believe that the EU's commitment to the Everything but Arms initiative represents a very good outcome for the least developed countries. It proves that the EU is serious in its commitment to putting the needs and priorities of developing countries—and particularly the poorest—at the centre of its approach to global issues.
The Government believe that the Community agreement strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of the least developed countries, those of the non-LDC, African, Caribbean and Pacific producers and those of our own domestic producers.
Your Lordships' Select Committee Report on The World Trade Organisation: The EU Mandate After Seattle rightly noted that,
"If the developing countries are to be persuaded to continue to co-operate in the multi-lateral trading system, they will need to be convinced that the system has the ability and the will to understand and address their problems".
The Government believe that the EU has, through the Everything but Arms initiative, demonstrated its commitment to putting the needs of the world's poorest people at the centre of its trading policies. The Government will be urging the EU to continue down this road, focusing on development in the next world trade round. This is the best way to ensure that the benefits of free trade are shared more equitably so that every citizen of the world can hope to enjoy the benefits that we too often take for granted.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am sorry to trouble him on this point—does he realise that he has undermined the concerns of his officials in Jamaica in matters relating to drug issues in the Caribbean?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I made a general point. There is no evidence that where preference has been withdrawn it leads to drug taking; and there are drug problems in countries which have
1244
had preference. Therefore, the easy assumption that if preference is withdrawn it will lead to more drug taking cannot be substantiated by fact.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.29 to 8.30 p.m.]

Health and Social Care Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 10 [Application to City of London]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 8, line 41, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Public involvement and consultation]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 9, line 18, after "representatives" insert "including Patients' Councils, patients' and carers' organisations, ILAFs, Patients' Forums, overview and scrutiny committees and the wider community"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 72 and 73. Clause 11 provides for health service bodies to involve and consult the public in the planning and development of their services. The amendments are straightforward. Amendment No. 67 is intended to clarify what is meant by "representatives" in subsection (1) so that it includes the new ILAFs, which are not specified elsewhere in the Bill, patients' forums, patients' councils, overview and scrutiny committees and the wider community. I am not a great fan of lists, but that seems reasonably short and to the point. There is currently a lack of clarity about whom the health service bodies should consult in the performance of their duties. It is not possible formally to consult everybody who may have an interest in health services, but one should have a pretty good idea of the principal players. The amendment carries out that purpose admirably.
The second main purpose is carried out by Amendment No. 72, which would add special health authorities, the NHS Executive—by that we mean the regional offices of the NHS Executive, which have an important planning and development function—and care trusts, which are set up by the Bill and will have an increasing importance over the years. It is important that those bodies should be included and should have consultation duties. I do not understand why they were not included originally. It may have been an oversight by the draftsman. The amendment fills a gap. It would be inappropriate for special health authorities and care trusts not to be subject to the same requirement as other health authorities to consult persons to whom their services are provided. The regional offices of the NHS Executive are responsible

1245
for many decisions that impact on service delivery. Amendment No. 72 would open up those regional offices. That is long overdue.
Amendment No. 73 relates to annual reporting. I note that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has tabled a very similar amendment. This is an important issue. The bodies concerned should state publicly how they have consulted and in what form. The purpose of the first part of the amendment is to require health service bodies to explain in their annual report how they have involved and consulted patients, carers and the wider community and what they have done about what they have learned as a result. The second part of the amendment would provide for an appeals and referral procedure by which contested decisions would be scrutinised and adjudicated on. That would enable patients and local communities to express their concerns about contested decisions and have those concerns considered by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 68, 72 and 74A. Clause 11 gives effect to one of the Government's main aims in this part of the Bill—to enable patients and the public to contribute in an appropriate fashion to the planning and decision-making of health authorities, PCTs and trusts. We fully share that aim. Patients and the public generally will be able to have their say in a reactive sense through a variety of different channels. The combination of patients' forums, patients' councils, advocacy services, ILAFs and, to an extent, overview and scrutiny committees will provide a conduit for the views of patients on the standard of services delivered locally and problems that may arise. However, equally important will be the ability of the local community to have a voice in the big decisions on issues such as the planning of new services or major changes in service provision.
The clause is not specific about who will be accorded the right of consultation and involvement in those decision-making processes. At some point in every Bill we reach what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has in the past described as a shopping list. Amendment No. 68 is framed as a catch-all shopping list, but its main purpose is to act as a probe. If it is a sin to try to insinuate a shopping list into a Bill, it is equally sinful to go to the other extreme and fail to give any indication of who is being referred to. There is a genuine risk that the Bill will fail to be clear about who the consultees are meant to be.
It is impossible formally to consult everyone who may have an interest in health services. At present, the statutory duty to consult is limited to consulting CHCs. However, unless the clause is fleshed out, I fear that legal challenges could be mounted by individual patients and groups who were not specifically consulted but who consider that they should have been. One can well imagine threats of legal action being directed at health bodies carrying out the consultation. CHCs have found themselves on the receiving end of complaints and solicitors' letters from community groups who believe, fairly or unfairly, that
1246
their views have not been reflected in the CHC's recommendations or responses. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to square that circle and to find out who will be included in the consultation process that the clause proposes.
As I said, the purpose of the clause is to place a duty on health authorities, PCTs and trusts to involve patients and the public in planning and decision— making. Amendment No. 72 would add to the list of health service bodies on which that duty was conferred. It would provide for special health authorities and care trusts to consult the public. It would also ensure that if proposals for changes in health services were under consideration by the NHS Executive, it, too, would be obliged to consult before reaching final decisions that may impact on service provision.
When a similar amendment was debated in another place, the Minister, Mr Denham, rejected the inclusion of special health authorities on the ground that by 2002 no special health authority would be providing services directly to patients. I ask the Minister to think again on that. The issue should not be whether services are provided directly. What matters is that the decisions of the authorities—for example, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is a special health authority—can have a real and discernible impact on health service delivery.
In the case of care trusts, Mr Denham's argument stands up to even less scrutiny because it is clear that a care trust will provide services directly to patients in as full a sense as will an acute hospital trust. There may be a legal objection to that. The Minister may say that a care trust is simply an NHS trust or a PCT in a different guise. However, I am not sure whether I consider that to be a strong enough argument and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
That brings me to the NHS Executive, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. Again, I recognise fully that the NHS Executive does not provide services directly to patients. However, in indirect terms, its role is of course extremely important. Regional offices of the NHS Executive are responsible for a number of decisions which impact on service delivery. Those range from resource allocation to decisions about reconfiguration of health bodies and supra-regional services. Regional offices are often the place where final decisions rest. Therefore, one could argue—and I do—that any process of consultation that confines itself to the bodies which merely implement regional office decisions is a fairly worthless exercise.
Finally, one theme to have emerged from our debates on the Bill thus far is the need for transparency. With the exception of one or two notable provisions, there is precious little on the face of the Bill in the way of transparency. The purpose of Amendment No. 74A is to apply, as it were, a little more window-cleaning fluid to the procedures to which the legislation gives rise. Its simple purpose is to require health service bodies to explain in their annual

1247
report how they have involved and consulted patients. carers and the wider community. In my view, it is important not only that such consultation takes place but that everyone should be made aware that it has taken place and in what way. I hope that that idea will commend itself to the Minister.
The other amendment in this group provides for an appeal for referral procedure whereby decisions that are controversial can be scrutinised and adjudicated upon by the local OSC. In that way, patients and the local community will be able to express their concerns about contested decisions and, where necessary, have their decisions considered by the Secretary of State. A provision of this kind would mirror Regulation 18.5 of the CHC Regulations 1996 under which CHCs have the statutory right to refer contested decisions to the Secretary of State. At present, the Bill does not provide for any type of appeals or referral procedure. I believe that that is an omission which should be rectified.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting debate, and I believe it is worth acknowledging that this is a very important clause. It sets out the responsibilities of the NHS in fulfilling its duties to involve and consult the public. However, I have reservations about the amendments that have been put forward.
Clearly, our intention is that comprehensive patient and public involvement will take place at all levels of the NHS. Clause 11 is explicit about that. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to list on the face of the Bill all the bodies that we would expect to be consulted, as is suggested by Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. I believe that the list is too prescriptive and it runs the risk run by all lists—by naming some, almost inevitably others are excluded.
The important point is the intent. The intent is quite clear. I believe that it would be fairly obvious to every NHS organisation that patients' councils, patients' forums, OSCs and patient and carer organisations would be critical of the delivery of the duty set out in that clause. The NHS has had extensive experience in consultative processes. We want to make that bite still further. I believe that this general duty does so effectively without the need to list a particular organisation which specifically should be consulted.
Nor do I believe that it is necessary to specify in the clause that patients' councils should monitor the implementation of Clause 11, as is suggested by Amendment No. 69. One of the duties of the patients' forum will be to prepare annual reports that will be submitted to health authorities and, indeed, to the Secretary of State. Those reports will include an assessment of how local trusts consulted and involved the public in their decisions. I believe that that will also be a powerful tool in the armoury of those who, quite understandably, wish to hold the local NHS to account in ensuring that the clause is put into effect properly.
1248
I turn to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to special health authorities, care trusts and the NHS Executive. He seems to have anticipated my answer, which is always rather disturbing. With regard to SHAs, my right honourable friend Mr John Denham was right. We do not envisage that any of the SHAs which currently provide health services will be special health authorities by April 2002. At present, Rampton, Ashworth and Broadmoor are covered by the terms of the clause as special health authorities. However, by the time that Clause 11 comes into force, they will have been made into trusts.
The noble Earl believed that some of the remaining SHAs which provide a service to the NHS may be covered by the proposal. It is worth recalling that the current SHAs include the Prescription Pricing Authority, the National Blood Authority and NICE. Although I accept that it is important that those organisations always focus their services on the impact on the public and patients, I am not at all convinced that the mechanism that we have set out here, which essentially concerns the provision of local NHS services, is the path down which one should go in relation to such institutions as NICE or the National Blood Authority.
It is also worth making the point that, for example, the Secretary of State has required NICE to set up a 50-strong Partners Council, made up of members representing the health professions and patient and carer interests, which it consults on a regular basis. In addition, a new citizens' council will be established to advise NICE on its clinical assessments.
So far as concerns the NHS Executive, I do not agree with the points that have been put forward. It is worth stating that the NHS Executive is part of the Department of Health. Therefore, the question of scrutiny and accountability must rest on Ministers' accountability to Parliament for the performance of their responsibilities, including the performance of the NHS Executive.
I turn to the question of care trusts. Perhaps I may explain in fairly outline terms that a care trust will be either an NHS trust or a primary care trust. If, for example, a care trust was formed out of a primary care trust and services were delegated to it by the local authority, in statutory terms it would be a primary care trust. Another example might be an acute mental health trust to which the local authority delegated services. That would be a care trust, but in statutory terms it would be an NHS trust. Therefore, I am convinced that care trusts will be covered by the terms of the Bill as it now stands.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 74 and 74A, I am not persuaded by the arguments put forward. Our proposal for a patient prospectus will require all trusts to say how they have taken into account the views of patients.
In addition, Clause 12 refers to the reports which patients' forums will be making to trusts and health authorities. Of course, those forums will also be able to make reports to the overview and scrutiny committees

1249
and, indeed, to the Secretary of State, if they are so minded. I do not believe for one moment that patients' forums will be inhibited from making their views known to anyone in the system whom they think is relevant.
The system that we are creating has any number of safeguards to ensure that as many people as possible are involved and consulted by the NHS. We do not need to go further. The clause as it stands is a very powerful guarantee of the way in which the NHS will behave in the future.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that response. It was admirable in the way that it dealt with all the issues raised. There is considerable food for thought in what the Minister said. I believe that he has answered the point raised in relation to care trusts.
One always has those philosophical debates about lists, prescription and so on. I should not wish to set a precedent by having the Minister accept any amendment in that respect. I shall consider what the Minister said and meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 74A not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"LOCAL MEDIATION SCHEME
(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, set up a local mediation scheme to be operated by Patients' Councils.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for

(a) petitioning of Patients' Councils by local stakeholder groups;

(b) the broad criteria by which requests for mediation are to be decided;

(c) the bodies and office holders that Patients' Councils will have the power to call to a mediation meeting;

(d) the time period within which mediation meetings must be arranged;

(e) reports to be provided by the Patients' Council to the Commission for Health Improvement, the Commission for Mental Health, the Audit Commission and the Secretary of State.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult Community Health Councils, Patients' Councils, Patients' Forums and such bodies currently providing mediation schemes and the wider community, as the Secretary of State shall consider appropriate.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98 and Amendment No. 98A which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. These amendments are designed to introduce a local mediation service operated by patients' councils. The purpose of that arrangement is to make provision for the local resolution of problems concerning the planning and delivery of local services.
The resolution of problems at an early stage locally would reduce the need for problems to be directed through the courts or referred to the Secretary of State. The amendment ensures that the results of such
1250
mediation are to be reported to the Commission for Health Improvement, the Commission for Mental Health and the Secretary of State so that any lessons that can be learned from that particular conflict can be picked up by those bodies and good practice disseminated elsewhere in the service.
This provision ensures also that there is an accountable and transparent system in place and seen to be in place. That seems to us a very sensible provision with which I hope the Minister will sympathise. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was interested in the speech of the noble Baroness. I have severe doubts about the amendment because, in a sense, she is proposing that patients' councils act as a mediator between different NHS organisations within a particular locality.
There is a fundamental problem of principle in that regard in that we see patients' councils as having a specific focus based on patients. Their role, alongside the patients' forums, is surely to represent the interests and views of patients as regards local services.
In view of that, one wonders to what extent they could then act as a neutral observer in being able to mediate between the different interests of the health service or, indeed, between the health service, local government and voluntary bodies.
It seems to me that if there is a dispute, there are two ways in which it can be dealt with. First, if it is a concern about major service changes, it must be the role of the overview and scrutiny committee of the relevant local authority to scrutinise the proposals and, if it disagrees with them, it can refer the matter to the independent reconfiguration panel which we shall establish to advise the Secretary of State. If it is not so much a question of a major service change but is in a sense a spat between different NHS bodies and organisations, it is for the NHS regional office to sort that out.
I understand what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve but I have reservations about giving patients' councils a role which in some ways may detract from their focus on patients and their interests.
Baroness Northover: I listened with interest to what the Minister said. It rather illustrates the problems which we are having, in the sense that on this side of the Committee we are looking for a unified approach to those matters, whereas it seems from the list which the Minister has just given that the Government are looking for a diverse and varied approach to all the different parts. That is reflected in the amendment In looking for a unified, independent and informed overview of what is happening, we are seeking to tie together the different parts, and that does not seem to be the Government's approach.
However, I shall wait with interest to see what follows on from these debates and where we can move to. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Patients' Forums]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 9. line 40, at beginning insert "Before the commencement of section 18,"
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 138. I need not tell the Minister that there is a fundamental difference of view between the Government and ourselves on the future of community health councils. I want to raise an issue which relates to the implementation of the Government's proposal to abolish CHCs.
If the Government have their way, Royal Assent for the Bill will be granted some time in advance of 1st April 2002 when the new bodies proposed in the Bill become fully operational. During Standing Committee in another place, the Minister, Mr Denham, indicated that the Government would continue to fund CHCs and ACHCEW until 2002. That assurance, although welcome, leaves open the question of exactly when CHCs will be abolished. To my mind, we need to make absolutely certain that, as far as possible, there is a smooth transition between the existing regime and the new one. That can happen only if the new systems are fully operational and bedded down before CHCs cease to exist. That in turn means that the statutory powers and responsibilities of CHCs should continue in being alongside the new structures for a period of time.
There is uncertainty about the Government's intentions as a result of a letter circulated recently to CHCs by the Chief Nursing Officer, Sarah Mullally, in which she said:
"CHCs will remain in each area until the new system is in place".
Taking those words literally, that could mean that different abolition dates will be set for different CHCs according to how well advanced the implementation of the new systems is in each area. On the other hand, it could mean that there will be one cut-off date for all CHCs, regardless of how firmly established or not the new arrangements may be.
The fact is that that uncertainty exists and it reflects quite badly on the Government. As I said before, there was a total absence of consultation on those proposals when they were announced originally. Even if I accepted, which I do not, the view expressed by Ministers that ACHCEW had no legitimate expectation of being consulted, it seems to me a matter of courtesy to keep ACHCEW informed of the timetable for the demise of the CHCs and to give some indication of how plans should be made for that.
The way in which ACHCEW has been treated by Ministers is highly regrettable. I hasten to add that I have received no whinging from ACHCEW in relation to this at all. That is purely my own view and, therefore, I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister. How do the Government see the transition process working? Will they undertake to keep all parties properly informed of the timetable? Above all, will they ensure that as far as possible the transition to the new regime will be a seamless one?
It would also be helpful to have clarification on what will happen to the employees of CHCs. Will they be offered the opportunity of applying for positions in, say, patients' councils and, if so, will their terms and conditions of employment be protected? Can the Minister tell the Committee what will happen to the records maintained by CHCs? The records represent a valuable resource, but issues of confidentiality will need to be considered. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide clarification on those concerns. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Rea: Amendment No. 138, in this group, stands in my name. I can do no worse than remind my noble friend of a paragraph in my Second Reading speech to which he did not have time to reply. I expressed more or less the same sentiments as those produced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, although perhaps not in as elegant a fashion. I said:
"Can we be assured that the new organisations will be up and running before the community health councils are abolished? If, as I hope, many of the community health councils' paid and voluntary staff are transferred to one or other of the new bodies, can they continue to function under the aegis of the CHCs while the new arrangements are being brought into being? How are the phasing out and phasing in to be managed so that the experience of the CHCs' staff and volunteers is not lost?".—[Official Report, 26/2/01, col. 1022].)
There is already much disquiet among CHC and ACHCEW staff about the future and I believe that some of them have already taken other jobs. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the Committee what the Government's thinking is on this matter.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Clearly, we need to inject some certainty into the situation. It would be grossly unsatisfactory if any gap were allowed to develop between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day for the relevant clauses, and indeed the setting up not only of scrutiny committees but also of patients' forums and patients' councils. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendments or dispel any uncertainty about the way in which the transition will take place, so that those who are employed and those who have a considerable interest in the effective development of patient representation at heart will be able to understand what the future holds.
The Earl of Listowel: On the continuity between the two services, can the Minister make an apology to the 5,000 volunteers of the community health councils for the handling of the CHCs and a statement to the effect that the new arrangements, if they are to be up and running quickly and effectively, will greatly benefit from the experience that the volunteers in the previous organisation have to offer? That would be most welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that I accept the point that we should have no intention of abolishing CHCs before the new

1253
arrangements are up and running. We intend there to be a well-managed transition between the existing system and the new system. The NHS has experience of restructuring so we understand how the process operates. We would seek to ensure that good, administered principles operate in relation to the phasing out of CHCs and the introduction of the new arrangements. Our intention is that the bulk of the new arrangements will have to be up and running before the existing arrangements are taken out of play.
The Secretary of State has a commitment to provide alternative services to those of CHCs before they are abolished. CHCs in an area will not be abolished until all the following arrangements are established: the OSCs, the patients' forums and patients' councils, which we intend should be established from April 2002. We want to ensure that PALS are established in every trust and primary care trust by April 2002. We also intend that the transition should be handled effectively so that there is no gap in relation to support for patients who need it from CHCs as of now and in the future from the new arrangements.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the matter of records. We shall need to consider carefully what should happen to those records. Clearly, it is important that the valuable work that has been undertaken should be passed on to successor organisations. We shall also have to reflect on how to deal with the paperwork in relation to individual members of the public who have raised issues with the CHC and which the CHC is pursuing so that such matters can be handed over in an orderly fashion. Support given now by CHCs would be given in the future through the new arrangements one way or another.
In relation to the members of the CHCs, I pay tribute to their voluntary and dedicated work. From personal experience I know how hard CHC members have worked over the years. I am anxious that we should be able to use that commitment and talent in the future. I have no doubt that when it comes to the appointment of patients' forums we shall look closely at the contribution that CHC members may have to make. It is also worth making the point that many of our current non-executive directors on the boards of health authorities and trusts have undertaken service with CHCs, which has proved to be valuable.
Employees of CHCs will be dealt with in a similar way to NHS staff who are the subject of a reorganisation or restructuring. However, I believe that the bulk of CHC staff will find that there are greatly increased opportunities for their expertise in the new arrangements. One has only to think of the possibilities in relation to PALS, to the secretariat which will support the patient forums and patient councils, to the establishment of independent advocacy services and to the servicing role of the local authorities' overview and scrutiny committees in order to recognise that there will be many opportunities for the highly skilled staff of CHCs. They will also find that there is a more effective career pattern for them. In the past, on becoming a chief officer of a CHC one reached a glass ceiling unless one moved into a
1254
different part of the NHS. The new arrangements will bring many more opportunities to move into different jobs in the area of patient and user involvement. Some Members of the Committee will be aware that a trust in Southampton has already advertised for the chief of its PALS at a salary of around £40,000, which is considerably more than chief officers earn.
Baroness Cumberlege: Will the Minister reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? There are many bruised people who feel they have been treated most shabbily.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I paid tribute to the work of CHC members. However, the Government have decided that CHCs should be replaced by the new arrangements. I do not believe that in reaching that decision and making these proposals we are causing offence to the current members of CHCs. I believe that we shall use many of their skills in future. Equally, government have the right to make such decisions.
Baroness Cumberlege: I accept that. However, it is a tradition within the health service that on the whole one consults with people before one goes forward with a scheme. Problems have been caused because, although the proposal appeared in the NHS Plan, there had been no consultation as there had been with other measures. The element of surprise hurt people, so perhaps the matter could have been dealt with a little more graciously.
Earl Howe: In supporting the comments made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, perhaps I may add another dimension. CHCs and ACHCEW are still in being and they need to know what is happening. I am conscious that they feel that they do not know what is happening and it would be advisable for the department to institute a little more regular communication so that they know how to plan for the exit.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, which were largely reassuring. They filled in a number of important gaps. The fear expressed to me was that CHCs might be left nominally in being but with none of their statutory powers. That would be a waste of time for all concerned and, more to the point, detrimental to the public interest.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said but I believe that it largely dispelled the doubts. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 10, line 6, after "carers" insert "and such other organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 and 83. They are designed to replicate one element of the status quo with regard to community health councils; that is, their duty to represent not only patients but also the

1255
wider community. I believe that patients' forums should be required to canvas the views not only of patients and their carers, although those groups must be a prime focus, but also potential patients; in other words, the community generally.
It is a matter not only of breadth of vision but of balance. The perspective of patients and carers is vital, but it is inevitably confined to a subjective viewpoint. Others who are not so closely bound up with local health services but who could be have an equal claim to be heard. I hope that if nothing else the Minister will recognise that there is an important point of principle at issue; that is, whether the remit and purview of patients' forums should be relatively narrow or a broad one like that of the CHCs. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: I raised this point earlier. I remind the Committee of the past work of the Community Health Council for the City, East London and Hackney with groups dealing with the homeless, sufferers of sickle cell disease and members of ethnic minorities who have difficulties with English. That work is perhaps not concerned with particular complaints but the requirement for special services which the CHC has helped to obtain.
Baroness Barker: I add my support to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I listened with interest to the Minister's words about CHCs a few moments ago. From conversations that I have had, perhaps the greatest blow suffered by people in CHCs is the devaluing of their strategic work on health, which is extremely important to the remainder of the Government's plans to make sure that health and social services become integrated. This is a forum in which one is not just talking about patients. Therefore, I echo the comments of the noble Earl about community involvement, which is very important.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely the point here is that much of the wider community role passes to the local authority in terms of the overview and scrutiny committee. That is the whole point of the changes that we are making. In gaining a wider community perspective, what better vehicle is there than the democratically elected local authority? That is the whole point of setting up the arrangement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said earlier, we are dealing with the problem of the democratic deficit which has affected the health service for so long. That does not mean that the forums will not bring to the table at trust level concern for patients and the public. I believe that that will be a very forceful vehicle to take those views right to the heart of trust board decision-making machinery.
But there must be a focus on the patients and public who are served by that trust, informed by the very membership of the patients' forum itself, which will include representatives of local voluntary and patients' organisations. That will ensure that the forum activities are informed by the wider view to which the
1256
noble Earl referred. But it is very important to focus on the prime purpose of the patients' forum, which is concerned about the activities of the trust. At the same time, we must not discount the major leadership role which the local authority will play in future in the arrangements for the NHS.
The Earl of Listowel: I see great value in the Minister's emphasis on focusing on the patient and his or her experience, but something is being lost. Here one has an institution with a shop front in the community that processes complaints but also can take a broader view of strategy and thinking and the needs of the community. I do not believe that that asset is being replaced by the oversight and scrutiny committee. I do not have experience of local government, but I have worked with socially excluded people. It is easy to lose touch with that experience. When one deals with people who do not speak English, or perhaps are illiterate, or have difficulty connecting with the system, they are more likely to fall between those patients who are recruited to the new forum and council and the local authority group. I should be very grateful if the Minister could reassure me on that matter.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The difference of view between us underscores what I see as one of the shortcomings of the network of structures created by the Bill; namely, its fragmentation. Overview and scrutiny committees are designed to fill a democratic deficit, which I thoroughly applaud, but their remit is not the same as that of patients' forums. I believe that the latter have their own roles to play in reflecting the views of the locality and trying to represent them on a day-to-day basis in the health service. Not to have a broader compass, as my amendments suggest they should, would be a shame. It may be that, in practice, their role will broaden out because people inevitably come to talk to you if your door is open. I am sorry not to see something more formally reflected in the wording of the Bill. But I am, as ever, grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken to answer my points, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before calling Amendment No. 82, I must advise Members of the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 83 due to pre-emption.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 10, line 32. at end insert "and shall act independently, so far as practical, from each establishing NHS trust or Primary Care Trust as the case may be"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is conveniently tabled at this point because we are considering in this clause the general functions of patients' forums.
One of the main worries about the new arrangements is that the independent status of the CHCs will be lost. The patients' fora will be set up in association with one NHS or primary care trust. Therefore, it already appears that they will not have the independence of the CHCs. My noble friend may differ. He may say that they will operate under a different structure and will be able to take a completely independent position. I am not so sure about that; nor are many people who are rather critical of the whole thrust of the Government's reforms. Perhaps my noble friend will clarify how far the patients' fora will be removed from their parallel trusts, and the mechanisms by which they will be seen to be independent. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In response to my noble friend. I say that there will be no point in having patients' forums unless they are to be effective; and, to be effective, they need to be independent. I restate to the Committee that the intention is that patients' forums will be provided with the independence required to fulfil their functions. They will be independent from the trusts for which they have responsibility—just as independent as community health councils are from the health authorities with which they have a relationship.
Forums will be established by the Secretary of State, not by trusts. The trusts will have no power to control how a forum carries out its functions. Members of the forums will be appointed independently through the auspices of the NHS appointments commission, which comes into operation on 1st April this year. Regulations will determine the criteria under which those appointments are made. Forums will be not be based in the trust, as in the case of the patient advocacy liaison service (PALS), but will be supported by a common secretariat shared with other local forums and the patients' council to whom they appoint representatives. Funding will be determined in regulations but will be received independently of the forum's trust.
I wish to state to my noble friend that the link between forums and their trust is central to making these new arrangements work effectively. To ensure that their views are effective, forums will appoint a non-executive director to the trust board. The forum will have the opportunity to build in the patient view at an early stage of the trust decision-making process. To make sure that all are aware of the forum's activities and the trust response, a patient prospectus will be published each year, detailing what patients think of services and how the trust is addressing those issues.
The patients' forum will sign off the patient prospectus as well as publishing its own annual report. I believe that these arrangements ensure that the forum will be independent of the trust and will prove to be a robust ally of the patients and the public concerned with that trust.
Lord Rea: I thank my noble friend for those reassuring words. I have a certain sympathy with him
1258
in that these words will now be in Hansard; they will be read countrywide and studied in considerable depth. The Government will be held to them. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"ASSOCIATION OF PATIENTS' FORUMS
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish an independent national body, known as the Association of Patients' Forums. with a duty to provide a national overview of the patient experience to the Secretary of State and National Health Service bodies, on a regional and national level.
(2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) above.
(3) Before making regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the regulations."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 84 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 134A and 145. It is common ground on all sides in the Committee that ACHCEW has played an extremely valuable role over the years, not only in co-ordinating the activities of CHCs nationally and in spreading best practice, but in giving information to members of this House and the other place; for example, its snapshot surveys of accident and emergency departments. They have played a valuable role in keeping us abreast of what is happening in our hospitals.
The major gap in the Bill is the failure either to retain ACHCEW or to put another body in its place. A letter from the National Consumer Council is typical of many representations made to me and my colleagues on these Benches and no doubt to many other noble Lords. The NCC stated:
"Despite the various local structures, the Bill still leaves a gaping hole, in that it omits a national body for patient and public representation".
One hopeful development was that the Government in another place recognised the case for a national body to bring together the various patient representation bodies, the forums and councils. The Department of Health proceeded to fund a short feasibility study to explore how such a body could work in practice. I understand that the results of the study will be produced by 31st March.
There is general consensus about the likely functions of such a body. First, it would bring together the evidence from the patient forums and councils about the general issues arising for patients at the local level and ensure that it is used to influence future policy developments at a national level; secondly, it would provide support training and development for the patient and public representatives; thirdly, it would ensure quality by monitoring that all the patients' councils and forums' services are delivered to agreed standards; and, fourthly, it would shape best practice on a national basis. That is an extremely important

1259
agenda for such a body. However, by the time the conclusions of that feasibility study might be published, the Bill could have finished its parliamentary journey through this House or a general election might have been declared. Therefore, it is important that we put down a marker and, if possible, come to an agreement on an amendment while the Bill is in Committee.
It is important that the national body should be statutory and not simply one set up through cooperation between the councils. We believe that it should be a body corporate with powers defined in the Bill. It may be that one should not be over-prescriptive, but certainly the broad outline of the powers and duties of the body should be included.
There are various different ways of achieving what we seek. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will notice that we are back to an A. la carte process with a series of amendments that have different impacts and may have different fan clubs in the ways they operate. Amendment No. 84 contains a fairly broad power to enable regulations to be made, but it sketches out only the broad outline of the kinds of duties that such a national body would have. Amendment No. 134A sets out considerably more of the powers and duties of such a body. It does not go into as much detail as many would like. For instance, it does not state that the new body will be responsible, in the same way as ACHCEW is, for funding patients' councils or patients' forums or that it should be a conduit for such funding. However, it allows regulations to be made that may or may not provide for that in the future.
Amendment No. 145 is perhaps the most comprehensive of all the amendments. It provides not only for a national body but also for regional patients' councils. That is certainly a preference of many in the CHC movement who would like to see the creation of those forms of regional councils. It would also have a resonance with regional government to be set up in the future.
I hope that one of the amendments will commend itself to the Government. I suspect that Amendment No. 134A is probably most to their taste. All the amendments would allow for developments to take place in the future. We need to have a provision that gives reassurance that this body will be set up. Therefore, the word "shall" in the first line of Amendment No. 134A is extremely important; otherwise, there might be a feeling that this would be nice to have—an optional extra—but might not happen once the Bill is enacted.
I trust that the Minister will be able to give a fairly good indication as to exactly what is acceptable in this collection of amendments and certainly give hope that we can start planning for the future and that a national body will indeed be set up. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to support Amendment No. 145, which was spoken to so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to support the spirit of Amendment No. 134A. If I were dining a la carte, I would definitely go for Amendment No. 145.
1260
Although my noble friend Lord Howe has put his name to Amendment No. 134A, we on these Benches feel that it is not yet perfect. Further drafting is needed in order to ensure that the views of bodies representing a wider group than just patients and carers are taken into account and also to consider how the body should be linked to advocacy service providers.
At Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State announced that the department would be funding work to look at the feasibility of establishing a national patients' organisation to act as an umbrella body for NHS patients. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, that study has not been completed. Can the Minister tell the Committee what is the progress to date on that initiative?
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the national patients' council should be put on a statutory basis to ensure its independence and protection from changing opinion within the Department of Health, otherwise it will be liable to abolition or loss of funding without parliamentary debate. The political debate that has taken place over the past few months with regard to the abolition of CHCs shows how statutory status ensures that governments have to account to both Houses of Parliament when seeking to abolish bodies that represent the public interest.
The group overseeing the scoping study passed a statement on 7th March which stated:
"The advisory panel agreed, after consideration of the interim findings, based on consultation with a wide range of patient bodies and detailed feedback from over 60 organisations, that a national statutory body is needed to fulfil the key functions identified".
We hope, therefore, that the Government will now make a commitment on the face of the Bill that they will introduce a national body. If they do not do so, we feel that they will be riding roughshod over the wishes of the scoping study that they themselves established.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 144. Since tabling the amendment, I realise that, given the propensity of the NHS to use acronyms, this body might find itself being called "NATPUC" which is not the most appropriate name for a health service body.
It is worth noting the wide degree of consensus expressed on all sides of the Committee on the principle that some form of statutory status is needed here. So wide is that consensus that I note that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has put his name to four different versions of the body. No doubt this develops the style that is typical of the Liberal Democrats in the run-up to elections: they are all things to all people. However, perhaps that is a cheap jibe which I shall withdraw instantly.
The importance of statutory status should not be underestimated. I know that government thinking appears to have moved on this, in that the principle of any reference on the face of the Bill was one that was rejected in another place. However, I understand that this concept may now be acceptable.

1261
I shall draw on my experience of serving as the director of the Association of Community Health Councils for almost 12 years. During that period, I gathered together a fat file of denunciations of my actions and those of the association by successive Secretaries of State, some of whom are now Members of your Lordships' House, although thankfully they are not present tonight. It is the function of consumer bodies and bodies representing the public interest in many spheres to make waves and to cause difficulties. On occasion, that goes against what Ministers wish to hear. Indeed, my file of denunciations concludes with what is probably the most vitriolic attack of all; it came from my right honourable friend Frank Dobson, who was then Secretary of State for Health. It was clear that he believed that anyone associated with the Labour Party, like myself, should not have been making the kind of comments we were issuing when a Labour Secretary of State was in office.
However, the point here is that every organisation along the lines of a CHC will, on occasion, need to be critical of government Ministers. If it is made too easy for governments of either complexion to say, "Let us abolish this organisation by removing its funding stream", then that is an extremely unsatisfactory situation. Statutory status matters a great deal and would be appropriate on the face of the Bill.
I still believe that, with one exception, my amendment is the best of the bunch. I take the point made 'by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would have been better had the proposed new clause stated,
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide".
rather than,
"may by regulations provide".
There are a number of elements in my amendment which I hope, even at this late stage, the Government will consider. The first element concerns the question of whether or not the new national body should have explicit responsibility for dividing and allocating funds and resources to patients' councils around the country. My noble friend the Minister suggested earlier that the proposal was that funding would come through the regional offices of the NHS. That is the arrangement that currently applies to CHCs.
However, it is not always a happy relationship. The regional office of the NHS is there to ensure that the NHS region functions as it thinks appropriate, and there are sometimes stresses and strains between the regional office and CHCs, particularly those CHCs which are the more effective and perhaps create more waves on the issues which need to be addressed by the local health service. A system whereby the funding stream came through a body which was clearly established for the purpose of representing the patients' and users' interests at a national level would be an appropriate way to handle that issue.
Similarly, issues arise about who employs the staff—again a point referred to earlier. I think that the current arrangement—which is very complicated—whereby staff of CHCs are employed by health authorities, paid through a trust and managed by and accountable to
1262
the regional office is a very messy one. There have certainly been instances where perhaps inappropriate pressure has been applied to staff of CHCs by regional offices. There has also been ambiguity caused by the question of who is the employer and who pays the salaries. Again, arranging for staff to be managed and appointed through a national organisation would provide arm's length support for the principle of independence, which I believe is extremely important.
The final point that I consider critical is that the national body should have responsibility for quality control and performance management of patients' councils. That is something that has been lacking in the past. On occasion, regional offices have taken on that responsibility and, again, it has not always been a happy arrangement. Under such a system it would be clear that all patients' councils across the country were being performance managed by the national body.
That leads on to the question of what will be the governance arrangements for this national body. The current Association of CHCs is, of course, run by a standing committee which is elected from CHCs. That cannot be the appropriate way of doing things if the organisation is responsible for the performance management of individual CHCs and for some of the funding issues. It would be much better if the governance body contained representatives of patients' councils and various bodies around the country but also other people with an interest and belief in representing the interests of health service users and carers. By having that balance between people who are involved in patients' councils and those who are involved in representing the interests of health service users and carers through other mechanisms, you provide, if you like, a non-executive function which ensures that the performance management of local patients' councils is done in an effective and fair fashion and in a way which is not seen externally as self-serving.
The balance of membership is extremely important. and that is why I have reservations about Amendment No. 134A—which, rumour has it, is the favoured amendment today. The reason for this is that there is no reference at all within that amendment to the questions of staffing and funding. There are provisions in it which may allow staffing and funding to pass through the national patients' body, but it is not specifically prescribed.
There is nothing said in Amendment No. 134A about what are the Government's arrangements for the national patients' body. That could lead to all kinds of problems. You could end up with a national patients' body, the membership of which consisted entirely of hand-picked cronies—after an appropriate "Nolanesque" process—who would simply be there to ensure that what the Minister wanted to happen would happen in respect of patient representation. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government. But it would be helpful if they made it clear that it is far removed from their intentions. It would be helpful to make clear on the face of the Bill the arrangements for the governance of the organisation, how it will be run and how it will relate to patients' councils.

1263
A further point which is omitted from the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 134A is any reference to the new body's relationship with independent advocacy services. That is not a problem if the view that I expressed earlier prevails; namely, that patients' councils are responsible for organising or making sure that arrangements are made for independent advocacy services in their area. If that is the case, it does not matter that no reference is made to independent advocacy services in respect of the national patients' body.
However, if the view expressed by my noble friend the Minister prevails—namely, that there will not necessarily be any prescribed form for the provision of independent advocacy services—it is important that there is a clear linkage between the independent advocacy services and the national patients' body, however that body is constructed.
I hope that we shall receive a clear signal from my noble friend the Minister that the principle of statutory provision for a national patients' body is accepted but that the specific reservations expressed in relation to Amendment No. 134A have also been taken on board by the Government.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate. I was particularly interested in my noble friend's fat folder of anguish expressed by Ministers at his activities and those of his organisation. I am not sure that my file is quite so fat as his; however, I recall being called in by a deputy secretary some years ago to be told that if I did not stop criticising the Government they would instruct health authorities not to pay any further subscriptions to the NHS Confederation, its predecessor organisations—a point to which I may return in relation to devolution in future discussions in Committee.
This is an important issue. The Government are sympathetic to the concept of a national body. We are backing a study by patient organisations into the feasibility of a national body to represent patient interests at national level. We have seen an early draft of the recommendations and we feel that Amendment No. 134A goes a long way to meeting the broad thrust of those recommendations. It is our intention to accept the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 134A.
In accepting the amendment, we shall be creating a new independent statutory body to advise the Government on the effectiveness of the new arrangements for patient and public involvement. What is significant in relation to a number of the questions raised regarding how the new national body will operate—particularly those raised by my noble friend—is that the new clause will place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on all the regulations made in regard to the new national body.
I want to make it clear that the Government are committed to wide consultation on how exactly the body should operate. This will include some of the issues raised by my noble friend, including the
1264
appointment of members—we shall want to see a rigorous, high-quality membership—the funding of the body and the provision of information to it. We shall have the final benefit of the recommendations resulting from the feasibility study soon. We shall examine them closely, together with any other suggestions put to us, before framing the regulations.
It is worth discussing briefly the kind of role that the new national body might occupy—first, importantly, in providing advice to government and NHS bodies on the arrangements for patient and public involvement in the health service. No doubt it will fulfil that role by gathering information from the NHS and the public about the development of these arrangements, by obtaining the views of staff involved in the patient advocacy liaison services and of members of patients' forums and patients' councils. Once these arrangements are fully in place, the body will then be able to advise the Government on the future development of processes for involving patients and the public. The body will have a duty to advise the Government through publishing an annual report, and to report to Ministers separately on its operations and its view on the effectiveness of the arrangements in the NHS.
The body will also be able to represent to the Secretary of State the views of patients, carers, and patients' forums and councils. In doing so, it will provide the opportunity for collaboration between the different patient organisations. It is to be hoped that that will allow for the co-ordination of patients' views from different organisations. I believe that it will also lead to somewhat more cohesive arrangements than are currently in place. Most importantly, the body will be able to support and advise patients' forums and councils. I am sure that that will be enormously effective in spreading good practice and in encouraging those bodies to be as effective as possible. I can give the Committee an example of how that might work. The body might draft a code of conduct for members of patients' forums, suggest service standards for the provision of advocacy services and provide advice on how the forums should relate to the board of the NHS trust, or the primary care trust, to which it relates.
I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and by my noble friend Lord Harris about some of the roles of a national organisation in relation to the funding and staffing of local patients' forums and councils. It is worth pointing out that, at present, CHCs are funded by the Secretary of State via a lead health authority in each region, whereas the Association of Community Health Councils is funded by CHC subscription, and also, I guess, by some income revenue raising activities.
I turn to the question of whether or not those arrangements should be replicated. I have great reservations about pulling the funding of the forums and councils up to the centre and using this proposed national body as a way of allocating those moneys. I do so for two reasons. First, if resources were allocated from this central body, and if staff were employed by it, I suspect the people working at local

1265
level would inevitably look to the national body as a fount of wisdom and accountability to the detriment of their work at local level.
Secondly, if this national body were concerned with the allocation of resources to patients' forums and councils, I suggest that it would be sucked into enormously difficult arguments about the formula to be adopted to ensure that it reached a fair-share position. The one issue that I always avoided at the NHS Confederation was any debate about RAWP, and any other allocated process that followed. I did so because I knew that we could never win. If the new patients' body were to employ all the staff and allocate all the money, I cannot help but wonder whether it would become sucked in by such difficult details to the detriment of its over-riding power.
I can assure my noble friend that we shall listen most carefully to what he and other noble Lords have to say about the proposed new patients' body. However, I believe that Amendment No. 134A most closely fits the Bill. That is why I urge Members of the Committee to accept it.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I understand what my noble friend said about the complications of resource allocation. It will no doubt be an interesting exercise for whoever has to undertake that task. In the future, the Secretary of State will undoubtedly have to explain the position that has been taken, rather than just saying that it was an historical accident arising from the original allocations to CHCs back in the 1970s.
However, I am not sure that I fully understand my noble friend's arguments about staff being employed by the nation al body and the concern that they would look to the national body rather than to the local body for guidance. The corollary of that argument is that if in effect staff are employed by the Secretary of State through a health authority or regional office, they will look to the Secretary of State for guidance and direction. Surely that is even less satisfactory in terms of independent effectiveness at local level than their looking to a national body which seeks to protect the interests of patients and health service users.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure that I agree with that. I know that my noble friend can point to some areas where there have been problems with the current arrangements where he feels that some CHC staff have not been accorded the degree of independence by the employing authority which he considers they should be accorded. However, I believe that overall the system has worked well. It has comprised an employing organisation for staff which is reasonably removed from their work locality. I consider that if we were to have a national patients' body, as is suggested in the proposed new clause, and if it were to hold all the money and to employ all the staff, it would simply become a national service. I believe that that could detract from the essential element of all this work at the local level.
Baroness Noakes: Will the Minister consider funding and the employment of staff as separate
1266
issues? One could free staff from any residual concerns about who the paymaster is by having the direct contractual nexus with the new national body, but by having funding dealt with separately if issues of resource allocation are deemed to be too difficult, as my past experience indicates that they may well be. I believe that we can treat those two matters as quite separate issues. There is a serious issue as regards creating sufficient independence from the rest of the NHS for staff who are allocated to these functions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I accept that point. However, we intend that there should be an independent secretariat which supports both patients' forums and patients' councils. But because the forums and councils will not employ bodies in their own right we have to find another vehicle to do so. Inevitably there will be debate as to whether that is entirely satisfactory. As my noble friend has pointed out, there have been some problems in that area. I believe that on balance it is better that the secretariat, which will be independent, has an employer which is situated as close as possible to the relevant locality. A national organisation with a national employer would remove many decisions away from the locality where people work.
Lord Clement-Jones: We have had a significant debate in the past half hour. It is significant that the Minister has accepted an important principle tonight. It is welcome that he has accepted an amendment, although I realise that many Members of the Committee consider that it needs further development. I also welcome the fact that the Minister said that there will be consultation on how the body will operate.
Although one amendment has been accepted, in a sense we are still subject to work in progress. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that he can make as many cheap jibes as he likes when he makes the good points that he does. I believe that he made four criticisms of Amendment No. 134A which I hope that the Minister will take on board as the Bill progresses. It is possible to correct by regulation the perceived holes in the amendment. For instance, a great deal was made, I think validly, of funding, employment of staff, responsibility for quality control and the nexus with the independent advocacy service. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised those points, rightly I believe. Despite the fact that the Minister is somewhat sceptical about how the funding may operate, in particular as regards membership and staffing, I hope that as the consultations progress, it may be possible for the various interested parties to come to an accommodation.
I believe that Amendment No. 134A has the flexibility for appropriate regulation to be made in due course. I shall move the amendment when we reach that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 95 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for a unified health and community care complaints procedure.
( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult Community Health Councils, Patients' Councils, Patients' Forums, patients' organisations and the wider community."
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 126, 129 and 133. I may earlier have inadvertently encroached on an amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I shall try not to do so again.
Underlying these amendments is the determination on our part that there should be a unified, effective and independent complaints procedure. That theme came out strongly at Second Reading and earlier today. Patients and the public have always deserved the best from the NHS. Today, unlike in 1948, they also expect the best. They understand if resources are limited but they do not accept that access to high quality provision depends on where they live, to whom they are referred and what arrangements have been made locally to facilitate or otherwise a good service.
When things go wrong, most patients are savvy enough to know when they are being fobbed off, whether the body to whom they complain has an interest in simply muzzling them, or they have a suspicion that that is so, and some will simply never find their way through the Byzantine system that awaits their complaints. It is no doubt clear that we on these Benches are not optimistic that the Bill will achieve improvements in this area. The amendment seeks to do just that.
Amendment No. 96 states that the Secretary of State must provide for a unified health and community care complaints procedure, given that the two arms are being brought closer together. We would like the term "unified" to run throughout the complaints procedure. It is plainly ridiculous that one patient suffering from different problems at different stages of his treatment should need to find out about, and proceed to, complaints systems in bits and pieces. As we have heard, that is looking at complaints from the service's point of view, not the patient's.
Amendment No. 129 seeks to include independent hospitals, clinics, medical agencies, care homes and domiciliary care under the umbrella of what we are discussing here. Across all the amendments, we are discussing a unified, independent, transparent and easy to use approach. No part of the complaints procedures should be, or be seen to be, answerable to trusts. Those procedures have to be, and have to be seen to be, independent. They must not depend on the whim of the Secretary of State. They must be seen to be robust. As litigation in medicine increases, this is the time not to weaken and fragment, but to anticipate, strengthen, unify and make more independent the complaint and advocacy procedures so that when something seems to go wrong, the cause can be quickly
1268
and easily established with the full confidence of the patient in how they are being treated in the system. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132 and 134. When speaking to my amendments to Clause 13 on patients' councils, I explained my view that advocacy services would sit most logically as an integral function of a patients' council. That view met with some agreement around the Committee. I shall not rehearse those arguments, but I should like to raise some issues surrounding the provisions of Clause 17.
Amendment No. 125 would remove the words,
"to such extent as he considers necessary"
from new Section 19A(1). There is too great an overtone of subjectivity and discretion in Clause 17 on what the Secretary of State is enjoined to do. If he were so minded, the Secretary of State could set up a minimalist advocacy service, perhaps even as an adjunct to PALS based in NHS trusts. That would not do. The clause would be strengthened by the removal of those qualifying words.
Perhaps less provocatively, I have suggested in Amendment No. 127 that the remit of advocacy services should be extended to assisting individuals who wish to make a complaint under a procedure operated by a social services authority. At the moment some CHCs support such complaints. There is often an overlap between health service and social service complaints. If we are trying to break down the barriers between the NHS and social services, it makes sense to remove those barriers to help people find their way round the system.
In the same vein, I have suggested in Amendment No. 128 that apart from complaints made to the two health service commissioners, it should be possible for advocacy services to help someone whose complaint is directed towards the local government commissioner. Again, I am uneasy about the words, "so far as practicable" in subsection (5) on page 14. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on them. Once one accepts that advocacy services need to be independent—I welcome that provision—it ought to follow that the arrangements are established as an independent service for all. I do not understand what is meant by practicability in that context. The subsection merely requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle of independence. It does not seem to fetter or compromise him in any way to insist that the arrangements have to be made everywhere or that they should be made in the form of an independent service.
Following on from that, the Bill should specify that, apart from being independent of the person complained of, the advocacy service should also be separate from any NHS or other body that may be involved in the complaint or that may have an interest in its outcome. That is the purport of Amendment No. 132. Amendment No. 130 continues that theme. If the advocacy service is to be truly independent, the way in which it is resourced should match that principle. There should also be some means of ensuring that the

1269
output of any given advocacy service is of an acceptable minimum standard and that the data gathered as a result of complaints work should be made available by way of anonymised reports to inform the work of other health bodies. Once again, we ought to ensure that there is information transfer if we wish the new bodies to perform a watchdog function.
Subsection (6) deals with the consultation process that would precede the setting up of an independent advocacy service. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has spoken to Amendment No. 133. I agree with her that consultation should take place with all bodies and groups which may be expected to make a contribution to the debate prior to the drafting of regulations.
Baroness Hanham: I apologise for intervening rather late in the process of this Committee. As I do so, perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that I am the chairman of a National Health Service trust. I rise to speak on the question of consultation, to which my noble friend has just referred. I note that all the way through the debate on the amendments reference has been made to this clause, which recommends that regulations should be consulted upon with the community health councils and patients' councils. I have absolutely no objection to that; it is perfectly proper.
However, the organisations that will be the subject of the proposals are not being mentioned. Therefore, I should like to put down a marker that presumably the National Health Service trusts, care trusts and primary care trusts will be involved in such consultation, as well as the wider community.
Earl Howe: I realise that I failed to speak fully to my Amendment No. 134. Perhaps I may do so quickly. It is an amendment which I drafted as a clause on its own and it concerns complaints. Its purpose is to unify the complaints procedures for health and social services. Increasingly, complaints are made about issues that involve both health and social care provision. That trend is likely to continue because health bodies and local authorities are working together more closely, as has been said throughout today's proceedings. Indeed, they are being encouraged to do so.
It would be easier for complainants if their complaints could be investigated by a single body. That would save them having to disaggregate what may often be complex components of a complaint in order to lodge them with the appropriate bodies.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly these amendments concern the arrangements for independent advocacy under Clause 17 and the complaints process for the NHS. The Bill places a new duty on the Secretary of State to arrange for independent advocacy services to be made available specifically to support people who wish to pursue a complaint against the NHS under the NHS complaints procedure. It is the first time that such a duty has been placed on the Secretary of State and I believe that it is a
1270
very welcome development. It means that patients who wish to complain will receive the support that they need both to understand the complaints process and to resolve the complaint itself. I believe that it represents a significant improvement over the current arrangements.
Having said that, I have concerns about the amendments that have been spoken to in this debate. Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No 125, which seeks to leave out,
"to such extent as he considers necessary".
Clearly, that would take away the Secretary of State's discretion over funding the new independent advocacy service. I cannot agree to that because, finally, it is a matter which I believe must fall to the Secretary of State.
However, what is not in doubt is that the new service must be resourced appropriately to enable it to respond to the demands placed upon it. It is certainly in everyone's interests to ensure that the independent advocacy service is as effective and efficient as possible.
Amendment No. 126 relates to the question of medical practitioners. I do not agree with the aim of the amendment. Medical practitioners have access to support through their professional bodies. I believe that those bodies are particularly effective in representing the views of medical practitioners. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to make independent advocacy available to them.
Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 aim to extend the Secretary of State's duty to arrange independent advocacy services to people who wish to complain about the services provided by a local authority. I understand the reasons for that proposal but there are genuine difficulties with it. The purpose of the new independent advocacy services is to assist complainants against the NHS. We have a different statutory arrangement and framework which applies to local authority services. It would be very difficult to extend the scope of an NHS independent advocacy service in that way.
However, I accept that similar issues arise as to how to help service users take up concerns about the services that they receive. We know that there are already many examples of advocacy in social services and particularly in relation to social services for children. We debated that matter in particular in our discussions on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I can tell the noble Earl that, following a recent consultation exercise on social services complaints procedures, we are looking at the possibility of a statutory right of access to advocacy as part of those procedures.
Amendment No. 129 seeks to extend the provision of independent advocacy services to those making complaints against independent providers, including independent hospitals, medical agencies and care homes.
Again, I see difficulties in that. The independent advocacy service is there to support those making complaints under the NHS complaints procedure. While that will apply to independent providers who

1271
are contracted by the NHS to provide health services to NHS patients, it will not extend to services provided by independent hospitals. Those organisations should make their own arrangements as they see appropriate to provide advocacy for patients who complain about their services.
The Government intend that independent advocacy should be just that, as set out in detail in subsection (5). That subsection already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle that the provision of services should be independent from the person against whom the complaint is made, or who is investigating or adjudicating on the complaint.
Independence arises from a number of different factors. Clearly, funding is one such factor. If the service were resourced by the person making the complaint, that provision would not be independent and the principle set out in the clause would have been breached. We intend to respect the independence of funding already provided in the clause, and so separate provision is not required.
We have said also, in subsection (6), that we shall consult the relevant patients' council about the arrangements for providing the independent advocacy service. That will ensure the relevant local element of independence which the amendment seeks to enforce. For that reason, it is not necessary to legislate for a monitoring and accreditation scheme.
On Amendment No. 131, it is the Government's intention that independent advocacy services should be provided by a source entirely independent of any person or body that is the subject of or involved in the complaint. We shall seek to ensure that as far as possible.
Amendment No. 132 would have no effect because a reference in an Act to a person also includes a body. That is a reference to the Interpretation Act 1978.
Amendment No. 133 demonstrates the risk associated with lists. The amendment would limit whom the Secretary of State could consult about arrangements for independent advocacy. By listing the relevant patients' councils, community health councils and national bodies involved in advocacy, it confines the persons to be consulted to those organisations. It would have the effect of narrowing the scope of the clause. Of course, we wish to have the widest possible involvement by organisations from whom we shall seek and welcome views. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—and she would certainly expect me to say it—that the views of trusts and health authorities will be especially welcome, as will the views of the NHS Confederation.
On Amendments Nos. 96 and 134, I return to the issue of a unified complaints procedure covering both the NHS and social services. Last year we consulted on social service complaints procedures and we intend to propose changes to them in due course. Noble Lords will probably be aware that we also funded a two-year UK-wide evaluation study of the NHS complaints procedure. Now is not the time to discuss or to legislate for a unified NHS and social services complaints
1272
procedure ahead of those particular activities, but I certainly accept that to ensure—particularly in relation to services that are to be run together—that there is an easy way for the public to make complaints about those services is a challenge to the NHS and to social services.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support the Minister on the matter of lists. I believe that they are a snare and a delusion, except when my husband goes to the supermarket and then they are absolutely essential!
On the matter of the independent advocacy service, the Minister said that it is a significant improvement, which I would endorse. I believe that it is a great move forward. If it works really well, it will reduce litigation towards which we should all work. However, there is some timidity in terms of the unified advocacy service. Earlier today my noble friend Lord Howe described some of the approaches of the Government to this Bill in terms of looking at the functions and then looking at the structures to support those functions. This is another part of that. If we were to put patients first we would not worry about this. We would ensure that we worked out the structures to enable the patients to use a unified service. I am afraid that we have shades of Mrs Archibald back again because we know that many patients become trapped between the social services element, the care element and the National Health Service element. Of course, later we shall go into that in relation to nursing services and care services.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 127, 128 and 134, proposed by my noble friend Lord Howe, I urge the Minister to meet with his colleagues. I know some work has taken place, but the role of government is to ensure that such structures are set up so that patients are aided in what can be a stressful, difficult time when they are often fobbed off by one agency or another.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: From what I have said I believe that the noble Baroness will understand that I am fully sympathetic to the need to ensure that there is a consistency of approach between the NHS and social services, particularly where joint services are provided. However, I cannot go any further tonight in terms of what I have said. There are some genuine difficulties in taking the independent advocacy service that we suggest for the NHS and saying that it should apply to social services. I understand that the noble Baroness is saying that we should be brave and that we should knock away the statutory barriers, but some issues would have to be confronted. Also in relation to complaints, we should see the outcome of the work that is being undertaken at the moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the issue of independence as far as is practical in relation to advocacy services. That rests on the possibility that patients' councils could provide independent advocacy services. As such a council would be formed of representatives of the patients' forum, it may be argued that it has a relationship with a trust in the area from which a complaint has come. We would not want to rule that out as being insufficiently independent. In those circumstances, we would want to have some room for manoeuvre.
Baroness Northover: After six hours of sustained battering, perhaps the Minister might like an advocate or perhaps a CHC or two to assist his case. I was comforted by some of his comments and would welcome the movement that has been suggested. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 98A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF OBSERVER STATUS
( ) Health Authorities shall extend observer status, with voice but no vote, to representatives of Patients' Forums, Patients' Councils and overview and scrutiny committees for its area."
The noble Earl said: This is a short, simple amendment. Its purpose is to give the patient involvement bodies which are to be established the right to observer status at health authority meetings. I find it odd that the Bill does not make provision for patient representation at health authority meetings. At meetings of health authorities, CHCs currently have observer status with a voice but no vote. It would therefore seem to be logical to extend that right to the new patient representative bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There is a simple answer. Health authorities, like trusts, are obliged to conduct their meetings in public. At present, health authorities and trusts are encouraged to extend speaking rights to CHC members. That is very much down to local arrangement. We believe that it works well in practice and believe that there is no reason to assume that the best practice will not continue in respect of members of patients' forums and patients' councils.
I do not believe that it is necessary to enshrine the procedure in legislation. I believe that health authorities will do the sensible thing and that in the spirit of decentralisation we should allow them to do that.
Earl Howe:' I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Entry and inspection of premises]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Authorised members of a Patients' Forum shall be permitted (subject to subsection (2) below) to enter and inspect for the purposes of any of the Patients' Forum's functions, premises owned or controlled by—

(a) a Health Authority,

(b) a Primary Care Trust,

(c) an NHS trust, or

(d) a person providing services under Part II of the 1997 Act or under arrangements under section 28C of that Act."

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 to 106. This group of amendments is designed to effect some subtle changes to Clause 14, which relates to the powers of entry granted to members of patients' forums into NHS premises. Instead of permitting the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to rights of entry, the amendments would place that right on the face of the Bill and require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the way in which the powers could be exercised.
My reason for proposing this buttressing is simple. I believe that the right of patients' forums to enter the premises of NHS trusts, PCTs and so forth is essential to the proper performance of their functions. For that reason it needs to be enshrined in primary legislation rather than relegated to a statutory instrument.
It is then important to ensure that the regulations pursuant to those powers are framed correctly. Perhaps the key issue, which we debated during the passage of the Care Standards Bill, is the extent to which the powers should be exercisable without prior warning.
Unannounced visits, as CHCs have often found, are an excellent way of uncovering a picture of how the NHS is really performing. However, it must be said that even where there is prior warning, such as happens with casualty watch, what emerges can be immensely revealing. I should be glad of the Minister's confirmation that, subject to there being no risk to the clinical effectiveness of the premises being visited, unannounced visits by patients' forums will be possible.
I want to raise another issue. When the matters were debated in another place, the Minister, Mr Hutton, resisted the suggestion that powers of entry into GPs' premises, as something which might appear on the face of the Bill, would pose human rights difficulties. I should like to ask the Minister why that should be when under the Care Standards Act the right of the National Care Standards Commission to enter freely any care home in the middle of the day or night did not pose any human rights problem. In any case, my amendment explicitly leaves it to regulations to determine the precise rule which would govern the powers of entry. I shall be interested to receive a rather clearer explanation from the Minister as to why this particular part of my proposal does not find favour with him or the Government's lawyers, if that is the case. I believe that the NHS should be subject to no less stringent requirements for inspection than private sector care homes. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 103 and 104 would confer a right of access directly on authorised members of patients' forums rather than leave it to regulations. I start by assuring the Committee that the Government fully intend to make such regulations as are provided for within Clause 14. We are determined that wherever NHS patients go there should be a means by which those services may

1275
be monitored and reviewed by patients. It was made clear in the NHS plan that patients' forums should be able to visit and inspect any aspect of care provided to patients, and this clause is a vital part of the framework which enables us to meet that commitment. Health services will be placed under an obligation to allow patients' forums to visit their premises and, in the case of GPs, right of access will be made a term of service.
I believe that the issue whether these matters should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations is a clear one. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his introductory remarks that we needed to ensure that we had got it right. Access arrangements are surely best left to regulations so that we can be as flexible as possible and learn from experience in relation to the issue of unannounced visits. I agree that that is something which must be allowed to happen under the new arrangements. In relation to GPs, we wish to have satisfactory agreed arrangements under which, as far as possible, such visits, unannounced as they may be, may take place. But that will have to be agreed with general practitioners.
We envisage that protocols will be produced for access arrangements which patients' forums may agree with health providers locally. Where access is denied, the forum would report that refusal to the relevant body. The regulations will set out the exact conditions and circumstances under which access will be permitted. They will include notice of a visit and a requirement to provide identification and the number of members who may participate. These matters were debated during the passage of the Care Standards Bill. The intention is not to create an adversarial system. Clearly, we want this to work in a constructive way. We must also ensure that the dignity and privacy of patients would not be overlooked in the arrangements. Hence the need for a protocol under which these visits would take place.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring patients' forums to publish reports of inspections. I believe that these amendments are unnecessary. Provisions for regulations for the publication and distribution of reports by patients' forums are made in Clause 16 of the Bill. The forum has a duty to make reports and recommendations to its trusts and health authority and to make information on its activities available to the public and other organisations. In doing so, it clearly will be informed by the finding that it makes during inspections.
The response from the body inspected will be contained in the patient prospectus, which trusts will publish each year, detailing what patients think of their services and how the trusts are addressing those issues. The forum will be required to sign off the patient prospectus as well as publish its own report. Under Clause 16, the Secretary of State may already make regulations regarding patients' forums to prepare and publish reports.
I turn to Amendment No. 102, which I shall move in due course. This is a minor amendment to ensure that patients' forums have access to all family health
1276
services by extending their remit, as presently described in the Bill, to local pharmaceutical services as well. I suspect that we shall be debating local pharmaceutical services tomorrow. We want patients' forums to have the facility of scrutinising and inspecting any service used by patients. It is important that the forums should be able to scrutinise local pharmaceutical services as well as any other services. I hope that the Committee will agree to this amendment when I come to move it.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for those very useful observations. I take the point about unannounced visits and the need to have flexibility through regulations, rather than tying ourselves down to the wording on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am a little frustrated that we cannot find a way of doing both: guaranteeing a satisfactory assurance about the right of entry and leaving the way open for the modus operandi to be set down in regulations. However, I accept the Minister's assurances in the spirit in which they were given. I shall reflect carefully on what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 11, line 34, at end insert ", or
(e) persons providing services under arrangements made under Schedule 8A to the 1977 Act or section 35,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT LOCAL ADVISORY FORUM
The Secretary of State shall establish for each Health Authority a body to be known as an Independent Local Advisory Forum."
The noble Lord said: This amendment establishes a framework within which the Secretary of State may set up an independent local advisory forum for every health authority. On page 94, the NHS plan states:
"Patients and citizens have had too little influence at every level of the NHS. As a result of this plan, each health authority area will be required to establish an independent local advisory forum, chosen from residents of the area, to provide a sounding board for determining health priorities and policies, including the health improvement programme".
Those independent local advisory forums are conspicuous by their absence.
At Second Reading the Minister said:
"the most important barrier which the Bill seeks to address is that between patients and the health service. The radical changes in this Bill will underpin the involvement of the patient and the wider public in the NHS, will give patients real influence in the way that the NHS is run, and ensure that there is independent support available when they need it".—[Official Report, 26/2/01; col. 988.]

1277
Independent local advisory forums were to be the conduit for this wider involvement in the NHS. They, we believed, were to be the body to represent the wider community. Why, unlike patients' councils, patients' forums, PALS and all the other bodies feeding into the health service provisions established within the statutory framework, have these forums not been included? Without a statutory framework it is not certain that they will be established. Moreover, they may be established only sporadically and may operate to varying standards and responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Astor. In the Bill we have had to get used to a whole range of new creatures—ILAFs, PALS, patients' councils and patients' forums, and the list goes on. Some are statutory and some are not. Therefore, some are susceptible to abolition at the will of the Secretary of State and others are not.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said earlier how awkward CHCs could and indeed should be on occasion. I am sure that the temptation to abolish one's CHC may have been fairly strong in some health authorities, if only they were able to do so. Therefore, I should very much like to hear from the Minister why the interesting distinction has been drawn between ILAFs and, for example, patients' forums and why ILAFs do not appear on the face of the Bill. Certainly Amendment No. 107 is designed to elicit that response.
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps the Minister in his response will elaborate on how these ILAFs will work; what their membership will be; how they will be facilitated; and, what is their agenda?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: ILAFs are a useful mechanism far helping health authorities obtain views from citizens about strategic decisions that they have to make. The reason that ILAFs are not on the face of the Bill is simply that they do not have to be because they can be set up through guidance that we can give to the health service. Secondly, we very much want ILAFs to evolve and develop locally. We do not want to be too prescriptive about how they should develop.
1278
Their function will be to help with the HImP and strategic planning process. The intent is that they might have a core panel of patients and citizens. some representatives of the patients' forums and, perhaps, a wider group of people from the locality involved. We know that some health authorities have developed citizens' juries as a way of getting public involvement and views about the overall strategic direction of the local health service. That technique could be used by ILAFs. Many health authorities have developed well-planned techniques for involving the public. They are not called ILAFs, but we can certainly build on that. We will certainly encourage health authorities to share and develop best practice.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Secretary of State will be issuing directions to each health authority requiring the establishment of ILAFs and ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure effective and meaningful public involvement. We do not believe that we need to be prescriptive about how that should happen.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for the Minister's response, and even more grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We are disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to put ILAFs on the face of the Bill. We feel that would have ensured that all health authorities would have them. Placing responsibility for establishing them with the Secretary of State means that health authorities will not be able to decide how effective they want the voice of the local community to be in this matter. However, I shall read carefully Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access
  European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access
  NATO Security Threat Review: US Participation
  NATO Security Threat Review: US Participation
  NATO Analysis of Missile Proliferation
  NATO Analysis of Missile Proliferation
  Arms Control: Discussions with US
  Arms Control: Discussions with US
  Steven Bryant
  Steven Bryant
  Zimbabwe: Commonwealth Team
  Zimbabwe: Commonwealth Team
  Police Sickness Management Policies
  Police Sickness Management Policies
  Driving a Bus while using a Mobile Phone
  Driving a Bus while using a Mobile Phone
  e-mail: Service Provider Checks
  e-mail: Service Provider Checks
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  Criminal Records Bureau Registered Bodies
  Criminal Records Bureau Registered Bodies
  Proscribed Organisations Order
  Proscribed Organisations Order
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers
  Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Gaming Industry
  Gaming Industry
  Microsoft and Temporary Employees Ruling
  Microsoft and Temporary Employees Ruling
  Supermarkets and Suppliers
  Supermarkets and Suppliers
  NMEC: Hinduja Foundation Contribution and VAT
  NMEC: Hinduja Foundation Contribution and VAT
  Gulf Veterans and Cancer
  Gulf Veterans and Cancer
  Armed Forces: Racial Equality
  Armed Forces: Racial Equality
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Strategic Export Controls
  Strategic Export Controls
  Morocco: Refurbishment of Weapons Licence
  Morocco: Refurbishment of Weapons Licence
  ITEC Stocks: 3G Sector
  ITEC Stocks: 3G Sector
  Broadband Services
  Broadband Services
  Electronic Communications: EU Regulatory Proposals
  Electronic Communications: EU Regulatory Proposals
  Internet: EU e-commerce Proposals
  Internet: EU e-commerce Proposals
  Employee Information and Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Employee Information and Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Autism
  Autism
  Parkinsons's Disease: American Clinical Trials
  Parkinsons's Disease: American Clinical Trials
  NHS Charges: Increase
  NHS Charges: Increase
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue
  Rail Passenger Safety
  Rail Passenger Safety
  Driving a Bus on Oxford Street while using a Mobile Phone
  Driving a Bus on Oxford Street while using a Mobile Phone
  Dog Wardens and Foxes
  Dog Wardens and Foxes
  France: Motorway and Port Blockades
  France: Motorway and Port Blockades
  Equestrian Centres of Excellence
  Equestrian Centres of Excellence